relative toxicity of pesticides against some agricultural ... · entitled "relative toxicity...
TRANSCRIPT
RELATIVE TOXICITY OF PESTICIDES AGAINST SOME AGRICULTURAL PESTS
M m t x of $^tIo£to9l^2> IN
BY
NASREEN BANO
INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY
ALIGARH (INDIA)
1995
t ^ ^
- 8 J R i M ' ^ ^ '
^£^-^ -woa
,\< Kr? ;iy
K-J^-^_, .aSi^
DS2798
Dedicated
to
my
Parents
SlBsar M. %fian Ph.D Ft Sl.FIAhB.FFFPSI.
FBRS FRES(London)
Ph. # 400077 IH8ECT PRT OLOST &
EHV3R0HniEHT T0X3CeL0eY inB. Deparfmenf of Xoology
niigarh QTuslim SniversUy niigarb - 202 002
3RDjn
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Miss Nasreen Bano has carried out her research work
entitled "Relative Toxicity of Pesticides Against Some Agricultural Pests"
under my supervision for the award of Master of Philosophy in Agriculture
Entomology, of this University. It is original in nature and distant addition to pest
management of stored grain pests
She is therefore permitted to submit her findings for the award of M.Phil,
degree of Aligarh Muslim University,
(ABSAR M. KHAN)
C O K T B B T S
PAGE t
1. INTRODUCTION 1 - 1 2
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 1 3 - 2 2
3. RESULTS 23-64
4. DISCUSSION 65 - 72
5. SUMMARY 73 - 75
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 76 - 77
7. REFERENCES CITED 78 - 86
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
"In agriculture if one thing is laid everything is
laid", said by the Greek Philosopher Cato. The origin of
insects coincided with the origin of land plants, the origin
of insect pests coincided with the origin of agriculture,
the origin of agricultural development coincided with the
origin of new pest problems and the origin of Green
Revolution coincided with the origin of pest control
technology.
Every moment that ticks by, millions of insects chew,
suck, bite and bore away at our crops, live-stock, timber,
gardens, hous'SS and warehouses, thus lowering the yield and
quality and increasing the product cost. The elimination of
insects is, therefore, a difficult but not an impossible
task. Accurate estimates of damage done by insects are
exceedingly difficult to arrive at, and the figures are so
large that it will be shocking to quote them, lest such
investigations should rather be prevented than encouraged.
Since the forties, the use of pesticides has
increased considerably throughout the world. Farmers felt
the need for an increase in output within the limitations of
land under cultivation. The high yielding varieties of seed
necessiated the increased use of fertilizers and irrigating
facilities, resulted in higher incidence of pests, weeds and
diseases, thus, making these less remunerative. The
principles of holding the plant protection umbrella before
the arrival of insects on crop and on stored grain, is to
keep off the active insects from attacking crops and stored
products.
According to Mukerjee and Boy (1975), Indian Agricul
tural Green Revolution, ushered in by the introduction of
high yielding varieties, increased farming technology,
adequate application of fertilizers, better irrigation yet,
it is not a success because of limiting factors imposed by
insect pests and other diseases. Of these, the insects and
their control measures have received greater attention and
are therefore much better understood.
India losses annually upto Rs.5,000 crores due to
weeds, pests and diseases. Wheat and paddy which are the
major food grains, contribute to 19 crore rupees. The loss
is 35% of the potential production due to the fungal and
viral diseases and insects, (Patel 1975). It is a sole
naked truth, that every year one out of every five tonnes of
the produce is claimed by insects, (Banerji _et al., 1985).
Worldwide, the annual post harvest losses caused by insect
damage, microbial deterioration, and other factors are
estimated to be 10-25% (Mathews, 1993). These losses can,
however, be minimised if liberal use of pesticides is
encouraged. It was observed that 25-40% of the food
produced is destroyed or consumed by different kinds of
pests at the pre and post harvest stages. It is tragic
indeed that such large production never reaches the hungry
human race.
In recent years Entomologists have emphasised the
importance of economic threshold as they apply to manage
economically important insects. The development of economic
threshold require bio-mathematical and economic expertees in
pest management. It is difficult to determine the economic
threshold of most pests on most crops. To do so, it
requires an ability to predict the probable consequence of
continuing increase of population if management tactics are
not exerted in relation to injury level.
The successive gratifying harvests was a great
blessing to the nation for more than six years and this was
possible largely due to the use of advanced agricultural
methods including the application of insecticides and the
predatory and parasitizing abilities of insects to save
agricultural crops which is exploited as biological control.
In the developing world, the need of pesticide is so
great and the difficulty in utilizing those that require
advanced technology is so to support the use of pesticides
when necessary. In 1979, the demand of pesticides was
110,000 tonnes as against the production of 72,000 tonnes.
According to Nair (1996), the global pesticides consumption
last year was estimated to be 45 lakh tonnes, upto 18.74
lakh since 1980, and in India the total pesticide consump
tion was valued Rs.555.64 crore.
Despite some drawbacks and adverse publicity,
pesticides have remained as one of the tool in controlling
the pests. The pesticides developed in the last quarter of
century have served as the most effective and economical
means to combat pest menace over a large area.
According to Singh et £]^ (1977), there has been a big
controversy over the use of pesticides in modern agri
culture. In the recent past, several symposia and seminars
have been organised in different parts of the world and the
argument of use have been put forward i.e. whether the use
of pesticides be banned or not. On one hand, the use of
pesticides has been considered so essential that their ban
would be an incalculable blow on the farmers and the
consumers, on the other hand they are hazardous to man and
other non-target species. Though most of the pesticides are
harmful, but farmers prefer it and atleast 20,000 people die
every year due to pesticides poisoning in developing
countries. This has led experts to call for a review of the
current agricultural practices refered to traditional
organic farming.
The occurance of residue in food for man and animal
has caused doubt and hence research has led to the
introduction of tolerance residue and other constants. Most
recently it has been evident that the residue of certain
more commonly used and persistant chemicals are widely
distributed in the environment with their deleterious
effect.
In our country in 1964-65, the stored grain control
measures were demonstrated, in wheat stores, in 20 villages
of Ludhiana, both by preventive and remedial methods. The
storing places were cleaned and disinfected by the applica
tion of pesticides.
Basit et. al. (1987) pointed out the average yield of
rice in Asian countries could probably be doubled by the use
of pesticides, but their high cost, their relative scarcity
and difficulties of application cause them to be considered
only a partial solution to agricultural pests.
Never before has there been so much controversy over
the use of synthetic insecticides as it is obtained in the
past decade. To make matters worse, public statements from
men in authority, both scientists and non-scientists have
been rather contradictory. The use of pesticides is harmful
in many ways and their unilateral use in agriculture must
not be given a green signal. A complete ban on the
pesticides will really be a disaster on this hungry world,
since any single method of pest control cannot solve the
problem of all sorts. Therefore, a serious thought must be
given to the problem and sound judgement about their use.
However, it is felt that the different methods of pest
control strategies must be considered complementary rather
than contradictory.
Since, synthetic chemicals are imposing several
deleterious effects on the eco-system, and in view of the
undesirable effects that may accrue due to unilateral
dependence on synthetic chemicals alone, the recent advancs
in research are directed towards insects growth regulators,
antifeedants, repellents and phagodeterrents of natural
origin, which are less toxic besides being easily bio
degradable in nature (Rajasekaran and Kumarswami 1985).
Since, smaller amounts of chemicals would then be needed to
obtained effective control of the pest, it would lessen the
dangers of both environmental pollution and development of
resistance in the pest species.
Some insects that can be controlled by insecticides
are discussed by Metcalf (1951). Earlier reviews (Abraham
and Padmamanaban 1968; Verma and Sindhu 1968; Butani et al.
1977) indicated that insecticides were effective against
several insect pests. Malathion, DDT and Kalesourse are
equally recommended as grain protectants against Sitophilus
oryzae, Rhizopertha dominica and Tribolium sp., El-Rrafie et
al. (1969) while Williams et al. (1982) found that azame-
thiphos was superior to Fenitrothion and of the common pyre-
thioids, Deltamethrin was most effective overall against the three strains.
Singh and Sircar (1980), observed that the development of
effective and stable synthetic pyrethroids for ' crop
protection is of relatively recent origin as compared to one
of the earliest non-insecticides i.e. natural pyrethrin.
Jha and Singh (1984) reported that endosulfan has higher
toxicity than malathion against the adults of T. castaneum.
Sahoo and Rout (1988) observed that Fenvalerate,
synthetic pyrethioid was superior to Cypermethrin in its
effectiveness, against S_. oryzae. According to Tyler and
Binns (1977), organophosphous insecticides possessed a broad
spectrum effectiveness against stored grain pests. Yadav et
al. (1983) said that Stegobium paniceum and T. castaneum are
the most and least susceptible species when tested for
organophosphous insecticides with low mammalian toxicity.
Sankhyan and Thakur (1993) concluded that Primiphos methyl
was more toxic to T^. confusum than to R. dominica and
Oryzaephilus surinamensis.
The United Nations environmental programme reports
that more than 300 species of insects now resist chemicals
that once killed them. The development of resistance to the
pesticides by many insect species is an important pheno
menon, these species change genetically by continuous use of
pesticides (Sanders 1982). Synthetic pesticides, which are
currently, used as grain protectant from insect damage,
their widespread use has led to the development of pest
resistant strains (Champ and Dyte 1976; Zettler and Cuperus
1990).
As reg ard to the stored product pests/ due to the
awareness of health hazards and residual effect of chemical
insecticides, there is a demand for safer insecticides.
Thus synthetic chemical insecticides can be replaced for
stored product protection which is highly desirable. The
selection of appropriate botanical methods may become
compatible with various components of integrated pest
management, though developing countries are promising
ecological safe farming. Countries like india are stuck
half heartedly in integrated pest management. Hence, in
recent years, there is an increased dependence on the use of
plant products for pest management in crop plants.
The plant products have been used as grain protectant
against stored grain pests for minimising the storage
losses. In our country, for storing grains and seeds, in
villages, there are no proper facilities that can check
effectively the insect pest infestation. For the control of
pests in well maintained and commercial storages, the
application of toxic gases as fumigant is commonly
practicised. However, the use of fumigant is not advisable
in poor and developing country like ours, thus old practices
of protecting stored products from insect pests by various
antifeedant and repellant plant derivaties should be taken
into consideration.
Future research on agricultural pesticides will be
increasingly directed towards the discovery of new chemicals
which will have low mammalian toxicity and do not interfere
with the natural balance. These pesticides would be
valuable in integrated pest programme and very promising
avenue of future pest control measures and then development
should therefore lead to reduction in the environmental
pollution by pests.
Informtion regarding the medicinal properties of
large number of plants was available even during 400 B.C. in
Asia and Europe and since then the use of natural
insecticides gained momentum. The insecticidal properties
of alkaloid nicotine have been known since 1800's, Metcalf
et al_. (1962) and Ware (1986). Plant materials such as
pyrethrum, rotenone and nicotine were among the first
compounds used to control agriculrual insect pests, (Perkins
1985 and Grainge and Ahmed 1988). Recently, some attempts
have been made by various workers in different parts of the
world showing that indigenous plant products are used as
grain protectants against insect pests in stored grains to
minimise the storage losses due to insects(Annapuma et al. 1989);
Bell et.al., 1990; Weaver et ai., 1991; Delobel and Malonga
1987; Khaire et a]^., 1992; Xie et al. , 1995).
The use of neem, as a natural control agent has been
known for centuries in our country. Although some extension
10
work has been carried out in India, yet the effect of neem
leaf extract on the morphological changes in coffee bug was
observed in Keneya. The major active constituent in neem is
the limnoid, "azadirachtin" which is well known as a
powerful feeding deterrant, toxic and growth regulator on
insects (Warthen 1979; Rembold 1988; Zannoet.al., 1975).
According to the studies made by Saxena et_. al.
(1988); Koul et al. (1990); Schmutterer (19 90); Baitha et.al.
(1993); bioactivity of neem is described against broad
spectrum of insects, including stored product insects. Neem
seed powder has provided protection against Khapra beetle,
Trogoderma granarium Everts; rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae
(L.); red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Pandey et_ al. ,
1986; Yadav and Bhatnagar 1987;Zehnder and Warthen 1988;
Jilani and Saxena, 1990).
Singh and Singh (1994) suggested that neem is a boon
for management of insect pests in developing countries,
because neem has emerged as single most important source of
insecticide for managing pests of crop and stored products.
Jacob and Shiela (1993) studied the effect of leaf powders
of plants namely. Datura alba Nees; Calotropis procera Br.;
Chromolaena Odertum Linn, and Azadirachta indica Juss.
against adults of R. dominica. Various workers (Singh et.
al., 1978;Kareem £t al., 1988; Dorn et. al., 1986; Agarwal,
1990) reported the ovicidal activity of different plant
materials on different insects.
11
Bowers £t_ aj_. (1976) announced the discovery of two
compounds in the common bedding plant, Ageratum
houstaniianum, which on contact with certain insects induced
their precious metamorphosis and forming tiny sterile
insects. The effect was termed as antijuvenile hormonal
effect. The compounds were shown to be chromene derivatives
named as Precocene I and II.
For the past one decade, chrysanthemic acid, has been
synthesised at price competitive to other synthetic
insecticides. Pyrethrum and derris root preparations are by
far the most commonly employed vegetable insecticides. The
use of plant products for insect pest management in stored
grain products reveal that these products being indigenous,
safe and less expensive be used for minimising storage
losses due to insect pests (Prakash et ajL. , 1986; Prakash
and Rao, 1985) .
Chandra and Ahmed (1986), showed the efficacy of few
plant material as protectant of wheat against Corcyra
cephalonica larvae resulting in reduction of adults.
Bio-efficacy of some plant material on the development of
mustard saw fly, Athalia proxima Klug was studied by Johri
et al. (1994). Kumariand Kumar (1994) gave the mechanism of
action of plant products which interfere with the general
physiology of insect pests and they further observed that
some of the botanical pesticides interfere with steroid
12
utilization on insect pests such as Spodoptera sp.,
Heliothis sp. and Locustsi thereby providing an alternative
for pest mnagement.
Since the losses in storage are tremendous both
qualitatively and quantitatively, it is necessary that every
effort should be made to minimise the losses with the safety
of stored products and the environment in mind. Hence/
there appears a great need for investigation on the present
day pesticidal chemicals with reference to their toxicities
and hazards. Keeping in view the above facts, there is a
great importance of synthetic chemicals as well as the
biocides. The present investigation was aimed to make
bioassay test of both types of chemicals. The bioassay test
\ as carried out against the three important stored grain
pests namely Tribolium castaneum (Herbst), Rhizopertha
dominica (Fabricius) and Callosobruchus chinensis
(Linnaeus); to assess the relative efficacy of synthetic
pyrethroids, organophosphates, organochlorines and other
biocides.
Materials & Methods
13
MATERIALS AND METHODS;
1. BREEDING AND MAINTENANCE OF STOCK CULTURE:.
A survey was conducted in the different farm
houses, godowns and mandees of ALigarh. Different
stored grain pests were collected from these, places
of survey. These pests were brought to the labora
tory and identified as Tribolium castaneum Herbst.,
Rhizopertha dominica Fabricius and Callosobruchus
chinensis Linnaeus by Taxonomist, Department of
Zoology. The culture of T. castaneum and R. dominica
was maintained by rearing it on sterilized and
conditioned wheat grain Triticum aestivum, while the
culture of C. chinensis was maintained by rearing it
on sterilized and conditioned moong, Phaseolus aureus
grains. Wheat grains, moong grains, glass rearing
jars of the size 15x10 cm., muslin cloth and rubber
bands were sterilized, by exposing them to ultra
voilet radiations in the Laminar flow for 15 minutes.
In each rearing jar of the size 15x10 cm, 250
gms of sterilized and conditioned wheat/moong grains
were taken and to this about 300-400 adults of T.
castaneum, R. dominica and £. chinensis were released
separately for oviposition. These jars were then
covered by muslin cloth using rubber bands. After a
14
week's time, adults were sieved out and released in a
fresh sterilized jar containing wheat/moong grains.
Rearing of these insects was done in the Constant
Temperature room, maintained at temperature 28+'2°C
and relative humidity 754 5%. A succession of such
jars was maintained to ensure constant and ample
supply of insects of uniform age and stage for
experimental work.
Two factors which directly influence rapid
multiplication of insects are the temperature and
humidity and, thus, in the present investigation
temperature and humidity were maintained. During the
investigation, insects were handled with care to
avoid any mechanical and physical injury, in order to
prevent any microbial infection, because fungi play
an important part in deteriotion of grain while in
the insectary.
2. PREPARATION OF INSECTICIDES :
2.1 CHEMICAL INSECTICIDES :-
Technical grade samples of organophosphates,
Phosphamindon 85% SL (United Phosphorus Ltd. Bombay)
and Dimethoate 30% EC (Rallis India Ltd.); Organo-
chlorine, Endosulfan 35% EC (Hoechst India Ltd.) and
synthetic pyrethroids, Fenvalerate 20% EC (Kisan
15
Chemicals), Deltamethrin 2.8% EC (Hoechst India Ltd.)
and Ralothrin 25% EC (Rallis India Ltd.) were obtained
from the manufactures for experimental purose.
Technical materials were diluted to 2% stock solution
using double distilled water by Pearson's square method
and was refrigerated until needed.
2.2 BOTANICAL INSECTICIDES :-
Azadirachta indica (leaves, flowers and fruits); Datura
fastuosa (leaves) and Calotropis procera (leaves) were
collected from the University Campus. These plant
materials were washed thoroughly and then shade dried.
Fine powder was made by grinding the dried leaves,
flowers and fruits of A. indica and leaves of D.
fastuosa and C. procera in mortar. The 100 gms powder
of each of the above was mixed with 100 ml of petroleum
ether separately. The mixture was left overnight for
defatening and extraction of the required material. It
was filtered, using Whatman filter paper no. 2 and then
the residue so obtained was again subjected to the same
treatment as above.
The final filterate was treated with 200 ml of
Methanol 90% for 1 hr, the process was repeated
16
twice. The solution of filterate and Methanol 90%
was left for evaporation on water bath at tempera
ture 47+2°C. The residue left after evaporation was
mixed with 200 ml of Ethyl acetate and water in the
ratio 1:1 v/v. The Ethyl acetate fraction (EAF) was
obtained and was later washed with water twice so as
to discard water soluble products by putting EAF
along with water in separating funnel. EAF and water
were mixed thoroughly and then the solution was left
to rest till the layers of EAF and water got
separated. The water layer was drained out from the
separating funnel and 5 gms of anhydrous sodium
sulfate was added to the thoroughly washed fraction
of Ethyl acetate, to soak the moisture content if
present. This mixture was again filtered and was
subjected to evaporation till total dryness was
obtained at temperature mentioned above. The residue
was mixed with 100 ml of Carbon Tetrachloride and
later subjected to temperature 0+4°C to get crystals
(Fig. A).
These crystals thus obtained were considered
technically 100% pure. From this pure material, 2%
stock solution was prepared by Pearson's square
method, using double distilled water, with the help
of magnetic stirrer in order to dissolve the material
completely. This stock solution was refrigerated
until needed.
17
3. INSECTICIDE BIOASSAY :
Small pellets of wheat and moong flour,
approximately of the same weight were prepared and
dried at temperature 32+ 1 °C. From the stock
solutions of both chemical and botanical insecti
cides further dilutions viz., 0.005%, 0.008%, 0.025%,
0.05%, 0.1%, 0.25%, 0.5% and 1% were prepared by
serial dilution.
Five dried pellets, were dipped in each concentration
of the each insecticide used for 10 minutes. Pellets
were carefully taken out and again dried at tempera
ture 32j l°C. Toxicity tests were done in 50 ml glass
beakers. Beakers were sterilized and in each beaker
the five treated pellets were placed and twenty, one
day old adults of the experimental pests were
released. The beakers were covered with muslin cloth
with the help of rubber band. The experiment was set
at controlled temperature and humidity conditions.
In this way, for each concentration five replicates
were taken, thus testing each concentration for
hundred insects. The insects were examined indivi
dually by the naked eye and also under binocular
when needed. Mortality was determined 24 hours after
exposure. Insects were considered dead if no leg
movement was observed when the snout was pinched with
forceps.
18
4. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS :
The following statistical procedure has been
used in the due course of present data analysis:
4.1 ARITHMETIC MEAN (AM) AND STANDARD DEVIATION (SD) :
The arithmetic mean and Standard Deviation
were calculated for each chemical at each concentra
tion and for each experimental pest used,
TV ^ E f X
A.M. =
where 'x' is size of item and 'f correspond
ing frequency and 2 f is sum of all frequencies.
S.D. = ^•^->/ n
Where, S.E. is standard error of Arithmetic
Mean and n is the number of observations.
4.2 BATTLET'S HETEROGENEITY TEST (X^) :
2 X for homogeneity/heterogeneity has been
applied to verify the significance of the differences
between the samples.
This analysis is based on the assumption of
normal distribution of the samples which does not
strictly apply to the present phase.
19
x2 =
1/C.{f log V - Sfi log Vi),
where, 'C = 0.4343 (1 + ( TT ' f )} 3 (K - 1 )
th -1 where fi = Sample size of i group
f = 2 fi
Vi = Variance of the trait in the i group,
V = £ fi Vi/f
K = number of groups
4.3 LINEAR REGRESSION EQUATION :
The coefficient of linear regression, ^
(slope) of Y on X is calculated as follows:-
3 = - ^ ^
The Y intercept is,
a = f - b X
This coefficient has been obtained to study the
linear regression of different insecticides with
different and respective concentrations.
4.4 TESTING SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REGRESSION COEFFICIENT :
Significance of the regression coefficient was
obtained by,
20
where, S, (SE) =/- S^ yx ^ 2 x2
S yx ,2 _ ^d^yx
(n-2)
S d yx = Ey - Sy
zy 2 = ( £xy)2
x^
4.5 LETH7VL CONCENTRATION :
LCr^ and LC-^ values are calculated from the
transformed mortality-concentration graph.
4.6 CONFIDENCE LIMIT (CL) :
To test the range of probability (P), the 95%
confidence limit (95% CL) for LCc^, and LCQ» for
respective insecticide has been calculated. The
lower limit of confidence limit.
L^ = Y - 1.96 6/n and
Upper limit,
L2 = Y + 1.96 6^
4.7 TOXICITY RATIO/RELATIVE RATIO (RR) :
Relative ratios for each insecticide for the
LCcp) and LCQ„ was calculated by taking the highest
LCCQ/LCQQ as unity and dividing it by LC_^/LCQ» from
the same vertical column.
21
4.8 ORDER OF TOXICITY :
Order of Toxicity is determined comparing the
relative ratios of each insecticide.
22
Fig. A
DIAGRAMATIC REPRESENTATION OF PLT^T MATERIAL EXTRACT
FINE POWDER (100 GM)
+
PETROLEUM SPIRIT (10 0 ML)
OVERNIGHT FOR DEFATENING AND EXTRACTION
RESIDUE
+
PETROLEUM SPIRIT (10 0 ML)
FILTER
e RESIDUE DISCARDED
FILTERATE + METHANOL 90% (200 ML) TWICE
1 HR
EVAPORATE (47+2°C)
i " RESIDUE + ETHYL ACETATE : WATER (1:1, v/v) 200 ML
i ETHYL ACETATE FRACTION (EAF) WASHED TWICE WITH WATER
EAF + SODIUM SULFATE, ANHYDROUS (5 GM)
FILTER
FILTERATE EVAPORATED TO DRYNESS (47+2°C)
RESIDUE + CARBON.TETRACHLORIDE (100 ML)
Kept at 0+4°C
CRYSTALS
Results
23
RESULTS
In the present investigation, survey was
conducted in different godowns of Aligarh city for
collecting stored grain pests. The material was
brought to the laboratory for further study.
A. Tribolivim castaneum Herbst.
T. castaneum, is commonly known as the Rust-
red flour beetle. The pest completes its entire life
cycle, from egg to adult stage in about 4 weeks at
28+ 2°C but, the development is retarded at low
temperature and unfavourable food conditions. In the
present study it was observed that the T. castaneum, single
female, lays nearly 450-500 white, transparent and
cylindrical eggs in the flour. The pest primarily
attacks milled grain products and in whole grains
they feed only on the grain dust and broken kernels.
In severe infestation it was observed that the flour
turns from white to greyish and mouldy and has a
pungent and undesirable odour making it unfit for
human consumption.
B. Rhizopertha dominica Fabricius
R. dominica, is commonly known as the Lesser
grain borer. The development from egg to adult
24
requires approximately one month at 28+2°C. It was
observed that each female lays 300-500 glistening
white, cyclindrical eggs, singly or in batches in
loose grains. The larval and pupal stages are passed
in grain. Both adults and larvae cause severe damage
to the grain by feeding inside and reducing them to
mere shells with many irregular holes.
C. Collosobruchus chinensis Linnaeus
C. chinensis, is commonly known as the gram
dhora (Pulse beetle) . It is a notorious pest of
peas, arhar, gram and sorghum. During the course of
present investigation it was observed that each
female lays 30-80 whitish, small, oval, scale like
eggs, cemented to the grain, at temperature 28+2°C.
The white larvae, which later acquires creamy hue,
bores into the grain and completes its development
inside. The pupal stage lasts 5-10 days and the
average life span of an adult is 5-20 days. The
adults and larvae both cause severe infestation which
turns the grain unfit for human consumption.
D. RELATIVE TOXICITY OF PESTICIDES ON STORED GRAIN PESTS
The toxicity of some pesticides was determined
against the adults of three stored grain pests with
15 days of exposure. The tables 4,5 and 6 show the
2 detail analysis of heterogeneity test(X ), linear
25
regression, lethal concentration (hC^^ and L C Q _ ) ,
relative ratios and comparative toxicity of all
respective insecticides against T. castaneum, R.
dominica and C. chinensis. The detail results are as
follows:
1. SYNTHETIC INSECTICIDES
1.1 Tribolium castaneiim
1.1.1 TOXICITY : When T. castaneum are allowed to feed on
treated pellets, with 1% Phosphamindon, Dimethoate,
Fenvalerate and Rolothrin concentrations, all the
insects died. While in the lowest, 0.005% concentra
tion, the mortal ty attained is only 4% (Table 1,
Fig.l, 2, 4, 6).
2 The calculation of X values show that the
responses of T. castaneum to all synthetic insecti
cides, except two (Fenvalerate and Deltamethrin) are
significantly different (P<0.05). While Phospha
mindon and Endosulfan responses have highly
significant difference (P< 0.001) (Table 4).
In the simple linear regression analysis it is
found that there is straight line relationship and
all the slope factors have highly significant
difference in all the respective insecticides (df =
7, P < 0.05) (Table 4).
26
1.1.2 LETHAL CONCENTRATION : The LC^Q values of Phospha-
mindon, Dimethoate and Endosulfan could not be
calculated due to extremly high mortality rate at
minimum concentration level. The LC r, for
Fenvalerate is lowest and Deltamethrin is highest,
0.094 and 0.207 respectively. The LCg- value for
Phosphamindon (0.608) and Ralothrin (0.783) are
lowest and highest respectively (Table 4) .
1.1.3 ORDER OF TOXICITY : Phosphamindon is found to be the
most toxic treatment against T. castaneum and Delta
methrin proved to be least toxic. The order of
toxicity in the descending order is Phosphamindon >
Dimethoate > Fenvalerate > Ralothrin > Endosulfan >
Deltamethrin (Table 4).
1.2 Rhizoportha dominica
1.2.1 TOXICITY : The experimental results show that when
R. dominica are fed on pellets treated with 0.5%
concentrations of Fenvalerate and Deltamethrin all
the insects exposed died resulting hundred percent
mortality. Similar results are obtained with 1%
Endosulfan and Ralothrin treatments. The lowest
(25.33%) mortality response is at 0.005% Ralothrin
(Table 2, Fig. 3-6).
27
2 The X values calculated reveal that all the
synthetic insecticide responses are heterogeneiti-
cally insignificant (P > 0.05) (Table 5), except for
Endosulfan responses (P < 0.02).
The simple linear regression, significance
test show that all slope factors for the respective
synthetic insecticides formulation responses are
significantly different (df = 7, P < 0.05) against
R. dominica (Table 5).
1.2.2 LETHAL CONCENTRATION : The LC values could not be
calculated since the mortality rate is high at
minimum concentration level. The lowest and highest
LCQ-. values are 0.556 (Fenvalerate) and 0.85
(Dimethoate) respectively (Table 5), proving them
most and least toxic.
1.2.3 ORDER OF TOXICITY : The experimental results
obtained show that Fenvalerate is the most effective
and Dimethoate the least effective treatment. The
descending order of toxicity is Fenvalerate >
Deltamethrin > Ralothrin > Endosulfan >Phosphamindon>
Dimethoate (Table 5).
28
1.3 Callosobruchus chinensis
1.3.1 TOXICITY : Observations made on the C. chinensis,
feeding on treated pellets show that the insects
obtained 100% mortality at 0.5% concentrations of
Endosulfan and Deltamethrin and 1% concentrations of
Phosphamindon, Dimethoate, Fenvalerate and Ralothrin,
and at 0.005% concentration of Diamethoate, mortality
observed is minimum (48.75%) (Table 3, Fig. 1-6).
2 The calculation of the X , shows that the
responses of all the synthetic insecticides except
for Fenvalerate are significantly indifferent (P >
0.05) (Table 6).
In the simple linear regression analysis it is
found that all the slope factors are highly
significant of the respective insecticides (df = 7,
P < 0.02), whereas the significant levels for
Dimethoate, Fenvalerate and Ralothrin are higher
(df = 7, P < 0.001) (Table 6).
1.3.2 LETHAL CONCENTRATION : LC values could not be
calculated due to high mortality rates at minimum
concentration level. The lowest and highest LCQ^.
values are that for Endosulfan and Phosphamindon
being 0.517 and 0.717 respectively (Table 6).
29
1.3.3 ORDER OF TOXICITY : The highest and lowest efficacy
determined are that of Endosulfan and Phosphamindon
respectively. The descending order of toxicity is
Endosulfan > Deltamethrin > Ralothrin > Dimethoate >
Fenvalerate > Phosphamindon.
1.4 COMPARATIVE EFFICACY TO THE THREE PESTS
1.4.1 PHOSPHAMINDON :
T. castaneum > R. dominica > £> chinensis
1.4.2 DIMETHOATE :
T. castaneum > C_. chinensis > R. dominica
1.4.3 ENDOSULFAN :
£. chinensis > R. dominica > T. castaneum
1.4.4 FENVALERATE :
R. dominica > T. castaneum > £. chinensis
1.4.5 DELTAMETHRIN :
£. chinensis > R. dominica > T. castaneum
1 . 4 . 6 R7VL0THRIN :
R. dominica > C. chinensis > T. castaneum
1.5 COMPARATION OF LINEAR REGRESSION LINES OF THE THREE
STORED GRAIN PESTS
30
1.5.1 PHOSPHAMINDIN : The 0.345% concentration of Phospha-
mindon resulted in 71.82% mortality (corrected)
against R. dominica and C. chinensis (Fig. 12).
1.5.2 DIMETHOATE : At all the concentrations highest
transformed mortalities are obtained for T. castaneum
and the lowest values are that for R. dominica
{Fig.13).
1.5.3 ENDOSULFAN : The toxicity is most observed against
C. chinensis and is least to T. castaneum at all the
applied formulations (Fig. 14).
1.5.4 FENVALERATE : From Fig. 15 it is inferred that 0.59 3%
concentration of the insecticide, when tested against
T. castaneum and £. chinensis, gave same mortality
(84.83%) and 1% concentration resulted in 113.23%
mortality against T. castaneum and R. dominica.
1.5.5 DELTAMETHRIN : Deltamethrin when tested at 0.732%
concentration resulted in 98.47% of R. dominica and
C. chinensis (Fig. 16).
1.5.6 RALOTHRIN : From the line graphs (Fig.17) it is
concluded that 0.513% concentration gave 83.16%
mortality to both R. dominica and £. chinensis, at
0.708% concentration 92.11% mortality is observed
again,st T. castaneum and C. chinensis and at the
concentration 0.91%, mortality calculated is 107.8%
at test against T. castaneum and R. dominica.
31
2 BOTANICAL INSECTICIDES
2.1 Tribolivun castaneum
2.1.1 TOXICITY : It is observed from the experimental
results that when T. castaneum are subjected to the
treated pellets of 1% concentration of C. procera
(Leaf) mortality reached to 78.33% which is the
highest and 0.005% A. indica (Flower) treatment
showed no response (Table 1, Fig. 8, 11).
Statistically/ the toxicity responses of A.
indica (Flower and Fruit) and D, fastuosa (Leaf)
treatments against T. castaneum are significantly
different (P < 0.001)/ as is inferred from hetero-
2 geneity test (X ) as shown in table 4.
The significance test for linear regression
coefficient fi (slope factor), show that all the
formulations of respective botanical insecticides had
significantly varied responses (df = 7, P < 0.05)
(Table 4).
2.1.2 LETHAL CONCENTRATION : The LC^Q value for A. indica
(Leaf) is the lowest (0.170) and that for A. indica
(Flower) the highest (0.734). The LCQ„ value
obtained for D. fastuosa (Leaf) recorded had lowest
value (1.07) and for A. indica (Flower) the highest
value (1.825) (Table 4) .
32
2.1.3 ORDER OF TOXICITY : D. fastuosa (Leaf) is the most
toxic and A. indica (Flower), least toxic against T.
castaneum and the order of toxicity calculated is D.
fastuosa (Leaf) > C. procera (Leaf) > A. indica
(Fruit) > A. indica (Leaf) > A. indica (Flower)
(Table 4).
2.2 Rhizopertha dominica
2.2.1 TOXICITY : The comparative responses observed on R.
dominica which were fed on the treated pellets,
indicated that mortality reached to 79%, which is
minimum, with 1% concentration of A. indica (Leaf).
The minimum mortality is observed, at 0.005% A.
indica (Flower) with the value of 2.33% (Table 2,
Fig. 7, 9).
All the responses, except for A. indica (Leaf)
and C. procera (Leaf) are significantly heterogenous
2 (P < 0.05) as inferred from the X values (Table 5).
The A. indica (Flower) toxicity is highly signifi-
2 cantly different as the X value (54.867) is much
greater than the tabular value (24.322, P < 0.001).
From the simple linear regression analysis it
is found that the slope factors of A. indica (Leaf
and Flower) have highly significant difference (df =
7, P < 0.02) (Table 5).
33
2.2.2 LETHAL CONCENTRATION : It is observed that the LC_-
value for A. indica (Leaf) is the lowest and that
for A. indica (Flower) the highest, being 0.294 and
1.113 respectively. The LCQ^ values calculated are
also of the same pattern A. indica (Leaf) 1.208 and
A. indica (Flower) 2.201 which are lowest and
highest respectively (Table 4).
2.2.3 ORDER OF TOXICITY : A. indica (Leaf) showed the
highest efficacy and A. indica (Flower) the lowest
efficacy against R. dominica. The descending order
of toxicity is A. indica (Leaf) > D. fastuosa (Leaf)
> C. procera (Leaf) > A. indica (Fruit) > A. indica
(Flower) (Table 5).
2.3 Callosobruchus chinensis
2.3.1 TOXICITY : Observations made on C. chinensis, fed
on pellets treated with botanical insecticide
formulations, show that it is 1% concentration of A.
indica (Leaf) which gave highest mortality response
(82.5%), but the treatment of 0.005% A. indica
(Flower) reduced the mortality to as low as 0.67%
(Table 3, Fig. 7, 8).
34
2 It IS evaluated from the X values that all
the responses at different treatments are signifi
cantly different (P < 0.02). While A. indica (Leaf),
A. indica (Flower), D. fastuosa (Leaf) and C.procera,
all revealed highly heterogenous results (P < 0.001),
2 as is obvious from the X values (Table 6).
The significant test of the linear regression
analysis show that all the slope factors are signi
ficantly different (df = 7, P < 0.02). While for A.
indica (Flower) the difference is highly significant
(df = 7, P < 0.001) (Table 6).
2.3.2 LETHAL CONCENTRATION : Of, the LC^Q values obtained
A. indica (Leaf) is the one to give lowest value,
0.361 and A. indica (Flower) gave highest value,
0.873. Similarly the LCQ^. values are calculated to
be lowest and highest for A. indica (Leaf) (0.936)
and A. indica (Flower) (1.593) respectively(Table 6).
2:3.3 ORDER OF TOXICITY : From the experimental results it
is concluded that A. indica (Leaf) showed highest
toxicity ratios and A. indica (Flower) is least toxic
to £. chinensis. The descending order is A. indica
(Leaf) > D. fastuosa (Leaf) > C. procera (Leaf) > A.
indica (Fruit) > A. indica (Flower) (Table 6).
35
2.4 COMPARATIVE EFFICACY TO THE THREE PESTS
2.4.1 Azadirachta indica (Leaf) :
£. chinensis > R. dominica > T. castaneum
2.4.2 Azadirachta indica (Flower) :
C. chinensis > T. castaneum > R. dominica
2.4.3 Azadirachta indica (Fruit) :
C. chinensis > T. castaneum >_ R. dominica
2.4.4 Datura fastuosa (Leaf) :
C_. chinensis > T. castaneum > R> dominica
2.4.5 Calotropis procera (Leaf) :
C. chinensis > T> castaneum > R. dominica
2.5 COMPARITION OF LINEAR REGRESSION LINES OF THE
THREE PESTS
2.5.1 Azadirachta indica (Leaf) : From the regression
lines drawn (Fig. 18) it is observed that 0.475%
concentration of the insecticide induced similar
mortality responses (57.93%) to R. dominica and C.
chinensis; 0.557% concentration to T. castaneum and
C. chinensis (63.64% mortality) and 0.805% concen
tration against R. dominica and T. castaneum resulted
72.37% mortality.
36
2.5.2 Azadirachta indica (Flower) : The three insect pests
showed great difference for the responses to the
insecticide and the efficacy is highest to T.
castaneum and lowest to C. chinensi s (Fig.19).
2.5.3 Azadirachta indica (Fruit) : The 0.309% concentra
tion, against R. dominica and C. chinensis resulted
is 45.8% mortality, as is clear from the comparative
line graphs (Fig. 20).
2.5.4 Datura fastuosa (Leaf): D. fastuosa (Leaf) at
concentration 0.312% presented 44.4% mortality, on
treatment to R. dominica and C_. chinensis; at 0.428%
concentration, T. castaneum and C. chinensis both
attained 52.47% of mortality and at the concentration
of 0.183% D. fastuosa (Leaf), when tested against R.
dominica and T. castaneum, the mortality range is
38.93% (Fig.21).
2.5.5 Calotropis procera (Leaf) : C_. procera (Leaf)
extract when tested against R. dominica and C.
chinensis at 0.468% concentration, toxic effect is
same to give 54.61 % mortality; at 0.786% formu
lation, T. castaneum and C. chinensis acquired
similar mortality (73.16%) and at 0.233% formulation
against R. dominica and T. castaneum the mortality
attained is 46.08% (Fig.22).
37
i^ ^ Z3
0 CO
o . 0
^1 l>J
U I n j
0 CJ
t o
0 cr-
-~j U l
0 CO
o-.~-4 1+ ' 0 CJ
CO i-n
0 0
0 0
fe 0
0 0
- 0
t o t o
M 0 -
--J ro
0 j ^
cs 0
• 0 -e>
w h
cr-
0 cn 0
- O
»i i_n
. 0
•C:>
0 -
- 0 CO
ro a-
U l
0 0
v& t / 1
CO CO
t o - 0
U l i_n
t ^ ru t o 0
•*• 0 0
0 0
^ ~J3
- O t o
t o t o + ro • * >
0 CO
t o
CD
J 3 0
::£
i Ft3
0 CO
cr-
' 0
0 3
t o 0-
co
t o cr-
t o t o
0 0
1 + ro t o
- J
0 -
t o •-0
-~J
0 0
0
Cr-
U1
0
1 + t o c
0
4> t o
0
0 0
--4
ro ro
ft
*> l-n
•S 0 + ro -~j
cr-~o
r o U l
0 . 0 f+
• 0
U l CO
U l Cr-
—J
•:? t o t o
t o 0
r-,*! -fc»
^1
1
-£> •~a
r o t o
1 + ro ro t o U l
- 0 o~ d 0
1 + ' t o rx3
ro —
•tx • ^
0 OO t+ U ro
•*-t j
U l
—* CD ro 1 + •ro - J
«' —*
U l U l
0 . 0 * + r o
• fc
—
U l t o
t o IXI
1+ r o
• CO ~o
U I CO
--J U l
1+ CO
_ CJ 0
0
0 ro U l s-j;
•c> U l
0 , 0 + ro 0-
0 - - I t .
j a •~j
0 0
1 + ro -i=>
cr-CO
0 -0
- 0 b
! + ru --J
Cf-ro
ro CO
cr-, - . j
'— 0 5
•Csi CO
U l U l
CO t o
1 + ro
U l ~o
Ul
CD
s '5 Ul
to 1+
o C3 CO
o--
cr-
00
Ul to
cr- —-
Ul
o
Ul
1+ to -o
CO
'A to
— -o
Cr-to "•J
Ul
-t> CO
- J U l
% + ro U l
--J
0 ---J
-e-«S •^ U l
0 U l
l_n -~l
U l
& • t o i ro ; !o :
1 1 1 ! 0 1 . 1 0 1 U l 1 S-!
1
1 1
t—»•
- tv m 3 TO =a «-•
t o 0
* • cr-ro
(U l [+ to ro .«> -a .
U l -(a.
•
-~J
' i ro --J CO
U l ~o U l
. 0
•A —• 0 ro
t o CO
cr-- .J
»A U l
cr-Cr-
U1 -~J
ro ^4
% --J
0--cr-
.*• - 0
U l
."-" I n t o
-> — 1 .
j »
U l U l
cr-t o • + t j 0
0 U l
o-CO
- t o t + ro
0
_-a. U l
o o
r ? to
o l-l-ro cr-
cr-03
1 + ro ro
o •? ru ro
O cr-
'ro -i CO CO
J3 cr-
Cr-Cn
O
o
C3
1-t-
Ul
o o fe ^
00 to
»-f-ro -Ca.
00
ro Ul
o o
• ^ _ - .
- J
ro
-o to
to
i¥ o Cr-
ro
• +
o
o n-
~o
---*••* to
^ ' " J "
• 4
0 0 • 0 0
»+ 0
0 0
- 0 U l
0 0
0 U l
0 0
k
0 0
« C i
.? 0
0 1 0
~J3 - • ^
U l C3
»s ro U l 0
o I ? o o o
I
ro Ul •A o 00 ro o
0 0
l-t-0 0 0
la. Cr-
t o
l¥ 0
ro . * •
0 0
tt, 0 0
o 1? o o o
TO
O o LJl
O o CO
^ I
s . t
o -n to
m
m CO
C3
m
ro Ul
F —I CO
C3 c: CO
o IS:
3J 3>
C3
to
o Ul
38
<rj 01
o
<-* - n
C 3 0 )
<-* c 111
o » o • -i n
„ -»> 111 U l
S-
I » M l u c x
^^' -^ OJ r-i
•r-* 01
3 » f J U O .
- CU r~i
C-*
o-
I—I O
^ C O
o-j-:;^ + ixi O
o O J
C J CO
1 + ' o
TT
""
<3
:3 .— I - - TO 1-1 Qy
o ro C J C O
» + o ro • t a •J3
.. -o o o
» + cr-U 1 un
n j U l
w to
1 + ^ - - 4 - O
- O C O
. oa * + C O
• o
C O C O
CO
*> Cr-
.•~-J 1+ ro - J
C O CJ1
U l U l
o o 1 + n j d a
•*» C O
C O
,"~ J -
. - -J • • t . ro -4D
C D CO
C O
o J5> U l
1+ C O U l
- J
o
o
o o U l ^ J :
ro o Cr-- J
5-ri.3
^ C O
o o
'A CO
C O C O
-_:•. U l
C O
b
- - J CP-
o J >
o
1? o . b
-it.
o-
ro
C O CO
OO
CiJ ~o
-e. U l
CKi . C O 1 + co
« o> •~i
U l ro o o
U l
•~.j 4 3
l . n O
O O 1+ <z> o o
U l J >
o
—i^
t> - J h
-pa. i -n
-~J •~4
o ~o -c»
- t » •ta'
o o
• — *
U l C O
o
o o CO
JS. C O
C O C O + ro -o ro •c>
C O
o C O
.w t + ~Jt.
*. o 0 3
CO CO
C O
. w ' i
- 4
CO a~
• o CT-
cr--~J
I j t C 3 U l
o-C D
ro C O C O
'A C3^
U l
g . o 1 +
C O
o
o-co
1 + C O o
ro ••^
C O Ul
C B C O C O - O «+ • +
Ul o
- t » • b
b~ ~ j
'f& o~ o-- 4
4 » CO
C O C O
'r i o - 4
-^
U l • - J
o o »*
C O
U l - 4
_:. O
o o « + o C O
U l
cr-
U l c> U l U l
'£. ro o^ U l
- A - - • O
,co ro U l
C B U l
C O 1 + ro
a--
1 + "ro
U )
o
f¥ ro U l
•A C O
U l era C O
. C O
1 + ' ro C O
C O ~o
U l O o
C O C O
t + ro C B
- U l
*. - 4
^ J C O
1+ C O
:. ro •43
_ -JD
O
.'=' 1 + —. _
b j a .
U l
C i
t + C O o
cr~ - 4
U l
* r o
U l U l
C O
o
ro C D
C D
o o
1 + —Ih
U l C D
• Cr-
.^ ro ro
3^
cr-U l
1? ro •43
ro
o-ro • - 4
• C D 1 + ro C O
-o •43
U l •~4
ro - ~ j
•A U l
o C D
4 ^ -43
O 1 ^ 3
ro 4 a .
C O - - J
U l U l
•--J
+ ro - J
o U l
CO 0 -
ro .'-" 1 + ^ -J3
ro
-o o o o n -o C D
—:. O -
o J+
Cr-C O
O
o 'ro
o-co U l - J
»+ ro •ta.
C D - O
U l U l
o o
1 + ' ro U l
U l
o
- . J
—. o-
. ~ J
1 + ro C O
ro —!.•
4=» Cf-
co »+ ro ro
U l U l
o o «•+•
ro
-o C D
4 3 ^-J •
U l
'S o ro U l
o
__* o d
o
t + o o o
—^ o o •
o o
• + o o o
-J3 U l •
o o »•*• o U l
o o
U l o-
t + ru - - J
o-
1+ ro cr-
•rli,
•g
C D C D
C O C O
t j+ o ro - 4
-J3 O
O o !_+ O
O o
o • U l > i :
Cr-4;>
. - J 1 -t-
ro -o j ^
o
Cr-U i
C B t C O
ro n j
-o •43
o-o o o
1+ ro
o -e>.
U l C D
o
«A Cr-
•
U 5
- J -43
O
•? ro o
_:. O
— 1 .
g •
.s 1 + O
o o
^ o o o
1 <+• o o o
• o o •
C 3
o 1 + o o o
. C 3 O
o .o !•+• o o o
C D - - 4
U l
.? — ro U l
o
_ o o •
o . o 1 + o o o
3 > TO
O ru Ul
-< o
—I m o
3 : en
o m CO
—I C3
c:
en 3>
O c: en c-j CD
r j -m
39
o t o 0 ;
o C-+
- o • o
CU >r* C
- Oi
- * 3 • - ' EU tjn
13
~% O — . 1-1 r— «tl ixi
un
<-• c o t / l Ot
. - n j i j l u - ^
x> r-4 DJ
ex.
— OU m
nn*" <-* » a i
.—> ~n -% t=
< - » •
»-• =3 O -
i-i CU
J> t-A EU
o. - n Ou
. =?" • r * GU
- T f l • -
o
«: ro
-^
=3 O -I-* m I "
X > rsi
a> CIL »-•
" O J n
rr c-*-U*
( - 1
r-ro EU
=3 O -
)_• o *•*" CM
cr-
O Cf-
O
o
o
cr- o ' A » + o o ->• u i
- J
o —'
I Cr---.4
U l O
o
- J Ul
1+
to PJ —
Ul o
^ o o U l
CD
m
CD X
CO -c» o^ — ru • • • • • • •
cr- O o 1+ 1 ± 1+
o
cr-
o ro o
ro n j
t^3 I t o ! + — t .
cr-ru
ro to o-~ j
1+ - J
er-U l
ro U l
o t C 3
f+ U l
-o -o
o ro o
. • = •
• j t o ro -o U l
to cr-
t +
to
ro -Ca
re --J
1 + ro
ro
n j
ro 1 +
CO
w o
ro
Ul
cr-
Ul t+ ro
o
o o ro -o
to to
t+ ro CIO
U l
ro
o o CO
o ro Ul
3
^
tn m
m en
cr-• — 4
ro to
1+ 1 + o ro -f» o
o t?
o o 'A
cr-t» to to
4+
U1 Cr- er-
-•~i — - - I
.T CD
C3
U l
ro cr-~-J
'A U l
^ cr-
n j -JD
o-- j
v& — cr--fe
-F> Cr-
O -. - - J
1+
Si J a . U l
O C O
o o *s. - b
O O
CO
J-t-CO
1+ ,1 l_n cr-Cr-^ 4
•A CO
- - 4 U I
O o U l
C 3 o 1+ o C O
cr--~4
IE
- O
Cl~ l >
Cr-- J
H -ro
U I
3 >
1+ 1 -'ro
o
CO CO
t o ~ j , t o CO
1—1 ' T 1+^ CO
— _ ro
o-- 14 O
o-ro - t »
o t ' ? 1+
- - 4
ro o
o o i+ o U I
o o
U I
o 1+^
C O
ro o
U l C 3
1+ C O
i-o C D
o CO
o ro Ul
t j , t j
I t -o CO
CO
'ro CO
to
o o 1+
-43 O
Cr-- J
'S C O
CTS •P>
O O
»A to to ru
o o • i d
t »
o
^ " • ^
o t? o o o
CO CO
CO 1+ o CO
U l
o
o a o o
o o
to o
o 'ro i> o ro o
o
o z to
o Ul
o - b
I ro Ul
1 +
o -43
Ul 0 -
o Cr-
Ui
I?
ro o
IH-O
C3 o o
it o o
o o o «? o o o
g o «+ 1+ o o o o o
o
40
tn m
rt
" t n n i =3 » - •
-*> !»• I -»
DJ =3
<-* O i • r *
< - •
:::r
cr
x : JCI
tZ-M
- c
t n
J 3 =3
-*> m CM n
^ iO^
" rs: o - 1 C - *
Eu t — •
,—•• -c - n Of * - • i t j iX\
€
1 1 t
O
C L EU C - * iXi
" • > MC •—• CU > *
t-t ifl -C >r* Qj ^^ ra C-* 1^
O i
,_». TO
» — •
n3
<: r o t—-•
O
-• " O
o C 3 >J1
o~ - * s I t
• ^ J
"
(--- • >
i - i Of =3
m ,!-* i T * = r (V
1 — •
T i •C
o
^ O o o
o
-» - a o o K.n
cx -*> I I • - J
i-w fT> • C m
o - + 5
"TDI
O i
O i O '
• "
C L - f . 1)
- - . 1
:='" t-* J D 13"
• r * O
n o E l • o
c: , _ •
m
r~ o
• c PLI
t n •
3
<:
m
—* -n a * - • C - +
I - '
=3 ea
rn
a>
T I
o € (13
-,
•-• =3 O -i-» n g j
r -TO DLI
I^
O J C J C J
C O o l O
O o
o d
CO
o C 3
C O o o
CO o o
CO £ o o o •=•
CO o o
c» o o
CO o o
o Cf-
CO o
U 1
ro C I -
C O o C O
- - 4
::; Cr-Co
< 1 •-0
Cr-• * » n j CJ-
UI CO
-a 1+
ro o CO
1 + ro
Cr-O
1 + o
o to
CO
ro o
_Z "-J
Ml O
U3 1 + nj o
-la. O •A o --J
ro CO
CO
•+
e m
-1=. ro
O J
CO
o U l U l r o o - .4
to C O C O
o
o-ro U l
1 o
^ J »
ro U l C J
C J
J » -JD r o o —:b
-~J C O * •
C J
•J3 - J
cr-1 o -fc. ~o ro
• •
- J o
o • ! >
ro 1 o o - - J ro
—>. o-cr-
O
j a .
o CO
1 o d •^i
cr-
ro "^
-JD cr-
ro ro CO
CO -la.
CO
— 0 en -D CD 3 : CO m CO CD
_ . ro - i -o o
o o o
-l=> to CO
-la. ro ro
Ul g
ro CO --J ro cr- Ul
o cr-
co -.J CO to
ro o
o o
cr-o CO
33 IV
33 OI
US o
i
~-4 ro I I CO CO CO
Cr-
TO cr-Ui
cr--la.
O Ul O -ft. •~J CO
O Ul O CO CO a --la. CO J5.
-la. O CO t o O -J3 O O --4
<o —
-43 ro CJ
CO -43
Cr-c n O
o -o
-£3. ro ^ Ul
to >J CJ to Zl cr-
L t. j; - J CD
U l to U l
to Cr---4
CJ cr-O-
o o ro
ro
tu
41
ro ca- 1-1 a- Oi
cn o •o ro
-n . ix> n •r* O
-% U1
w
!-• £ )
CO
o "O ro
-+s OJ i - i •r* O
_,, Ml
Z7-
(«• jZr
CO
J C I
:3 *-•
-*!, n CU n < - •
EU c-t-C - *
=r
ar ~ ,_ c
J D "• =r c' ,-- a •"C *"
^ 1-U1 <"
,- •< ^ = 1
3 r t^ £L 1 - , • -
»- n: r-i ^ [ U 3 s
ITS !U
C5
-n o E •J1
_
C 3 01 <-+ c: - tu
-*» lU in
s:' 1
3 > M CU C i . *-•
•~% cu r-i
=•-C-* OJ
I > r-j !K o> - 5 01 r-i 3 r
<-* PJ
• - - , _ _ . 3
!Xi =3 c-«-
m , _ •
JiX n3
i~> JTI
zi - 1 ,
i-< r-r O i = 1 <r-+
TO
»— O - • T .
"t3
O i
C3
,;-+ =r
ro
»—> CD
ro
I.D i ^ -• , n
o -*a
-13 • ^
O
C 5 U l
O . - * 9 1)
•--J •
"wj
— " o
o - h i
"CI ^ • ^
O
•Ct i C i
era cri
£3-- • >
n - J
c o IJl 1 ^ 3 ^ =
CO o c
CD o o
Oo o o
do o C3
Oa o CJ
.CO cr-1+ 1 +
CD CO
n j -a . O 4a. O - J
ro CD a- w
C D
o
o C O
CO S o "^
o CO
CD .-J cr-ro
o t l ro «+
CO
C D — . j » _- . Cr-
CO
O
C D C O
1 o
4 3 .
o
CD
1 o
CD
o
o
o
CO
_ 1 ^
t o
ro
o Ln C O cr-I
o
1+
o
no
r o -—
ro o-j »
un o - ~ j
cr-Cr-CAJ
o o o
.* CD cr-
- J
n j o
ro o
o-ro
• - 4
U l U I Cr-
_ . _u _ i r o
.i-n S
C D o o
CO
cr-
o CD Cr-
r o •-D
CD - J
no Ul
r2 -o U l c r --J3 o -
co CD
4 »
o
S CD o ro
U l CO CO
U l ro
-a U l -J3 •o
C D — - i
o —
C D o o
ro C D
- J o-1+
Cr-O C D
U l CD
C D
o
— — ro
0 3
o
o
L L L U U L 'o U U L ro
C D
o
>« 2 ro "2
S^
^l
f-J
.--•w — 6
_-( -< 3 3 m en -a -o CD
s
:xi ro in
3 3 m 3 >
CT- &•
C O C O
o o T 3 "O »t> m
-*? -h,
C O
£i Z l
- * > I-"
Id
J 3
•<:
o - s
r* O J
1 1
^ o cad i
111 DJ IT w pm ,-1 • < : O J
lA U^ PJ - ^ j
t n
»-• £: i
=s
-*:. t-» r-i OJ =S
• ^ " ^
cu c ^
T-+ r ? "
rT"
o - • a
•<: u^
i-^i
- h , » - •
m £L> n
< - •
i T * :irf OJ
i — *
o> • c
ns t—•
o -+: ,
-o O
»-• 1-1 111 3 C - +
Oi C-+
r-*
i r i
1 -
i n -c rv
(_««
m o i
S r o
- r o
r-t O
o I T
»-• J O
: C - *
O - • f
-o ^ • ^
o C D
cn
f t i
r o - c r o
) - - • o - • »
11 . ^ O
C 3
ca. -«x. 11
•~-J
Oa ce OP C» Co O O O O o i O O Ca C3 o
CO
CD o o CO o o
CO o o CO o o
o P J
J x
a--o -~4
o CO
o CO 4 a
2 ro ro
1+ - J 1+
a> »+ o
ru CO
CO
ct~
o « + - J ro
6 rtj — -o
-J3
C J C O -JD
O
cr-r>J
u.
\ o
^ - t » »-J
w -JD C O
O
cr-*• o 1
O
^ U i cr-
C O CO
ro
C 3
cr-ro 4 ^
I o w ^
-c> o
C O - J U J
_-:>. — I k
—jh i_n
1 O
cr-co — X
C O o
ih
o t > o to 1 o
^ -o
CO CO
ro •*--c>
.-A.
-a to ro CO i_n
C 5
o o
-^ —• — — o -o cr-
o - J U 1
_-. to
X
r-" Ip CO
to to
o
o
_ ro U l
ro
L - - 4 o-C O
o - - J C O
— to ro p 1 o C O
to cr-
U l -o l > J
- i
C D C J U l
L C O U l _ a .
o--ro
ro to
cr--o
cr-Cr-
C3
—x
Cr-•43
•43 O
45. ro C3
-J3 t o
4 » ro - J
o ^4
4 » ro t o
4 » --J l_n
_». ro
*• C D ro
U l - 0 - - 4
4:> - . i C O
C J o o
o ro
o Cr-
ro CD cr-
•43 ro ro ro
CD _ *
42
— o
« ^ tn -a C3 z IXI m en o
o
-J3 IJ l
3 3 r t i
1 - . O . 1-1 r o
43
S
I !
I
Fiq.1 Effui of !h)^phamvioT\ m nwtalWy
0M5 0.05 0.i 025
pmsmumti cQucmuTm f» Txasbmm fidomvka Of/i CcAincnstt
44
ig.2 Efftci 0/ IKmilmit on -mrUiJty
^ N S M
S % 0 >
^ (i 1 h >
i ^ ^ \
m
m
so
so
70
60
50
40
30
20
io
0 0.005 OM 0M5 0,05 0.i 025 0.5 /
mTHommcmRmniii
46
S
a; 0
!
I
r' 7
ng.j Effed Qf Endimljm on morMfy
o,m om 0.025 o.05 o.f 0^5 0.5 /
T.cttsfantifm ^' i ld jnmniea ^ C c W n e t B t s
46
Fig. 4 Effed of Fm>dmi( on nwMiy
r
S
I % 0
FmMmTEmcmmion) T-cosimeum ^Atfomimctt ^ CeAincrBW
47
S
0
s
,5 45yect of IkUameihrxn on Tnor(ft%
OM 0M5 OM 0./ 0 i5 Oi /
Txastamm Udmrna YM C.(Mnsnsiis
48
Fiq.h
l^feci of RaloiIvfi3\ m nwiaHiy
s
ft; 0
o,m om om OM o.i 0^5 0,5 /
MwrnrnmcmRATioan^
49»
0
so
80
70
60
50
40
. ? o -
20-
iO
Flq.7 Effect of A.indicdikiKes) m mcfriaHiy
^
p 1 i m i
I I ti
I
I
f
I 1
Ml 1
V
h WW-'
1
i I I M If
O M 0.005 0.025 0.05 O.i 025 0.5 \
i-iiMficB mm) mcEKimm f»
50
Flq.8 Sffed of iuwficafjWer) on mrialiiy
s H
?;
OM 0./ OM 0.5 /
^f.casimeirm ^/ttfomimco ^Cchmm
51
S
«;
2
Fig. 9 Sffid of i.imiica(/ruii^ <m mrrioMiy
Om QM5 OM O.i VM 0.5 /
Itdammn v/// dlmm^
52
S
I
t (J
"ig.lO Effect of D.fasiwsdkap m miffioMy
OM Om 0,025 0.05 0./ O^J 0.5 I
d.fssivm iiiifi mcmurm ^
53
S
Fig, 11 EffQci of CprocmikaiP m nwriadiy
Cprocera (I£^ CQUCEmkim fiC
54
s
\ a;
m
uo
m
do
80
70
60 If"'.'/ ' ft /
50 r /
ig,12 Linear rej/reimon o/moriaWy
,' B
/ /
f /
'' /
•••• 4 ' -
• ' / /
01 0,4 0.^
PBosmmwa mcmRma /«
55
m
Fig. 13 Lmar ngnmin of rmridiiy
no .^
/ / P
s s
a; 0
ft;
m
90
80
70
/ /
/
/ /
/
/ /
A
60
^0 02 0,4 0,^ 0,8
amrnm mcmRAjm (^
56
S
1
11;
\ a;
"ig.H Limar regnmon o/ morMiy
UO
m
so
so
70
60
0 f / /
' * . / • • •
0''
/
1 ! 1
/ /
/ /
' X
! 1 1
/ /
y
i 1
/ / A
1 1
01 0.4 0,^ 0,S
0 T-intstamm + Hdcmma ' C.shi3\m\s
57
"ig.15 Lmwr TBgrm\f}i\ 0/ JiwriaMy
S
0
\
0
58
Fiq.1G
S
0
\
i
i20
Ho
rn
so
80
70
^0
50
40
30
t<V V A
.A'
/
linear regression o/ mi/rMiy
0
, - - • ' •
A-" '"
/ ' /
j ' '
/
1 1 1
k . ' ' >
^ -"'' J-'^ . A' /
-'"" / /
y • " ' / '
/
/ f
f
/ /
1 1 1 1
0 0. 0.
0 T.cttsioneum + Actommca 0 CcAinereis
59
h S
#0
I 0
5
/O
I/O
f O O -
yy
70
W-
5 0 -
40-
30
Fiq.l?
-
_
-
J.
r /
/
/
1 1 1
^ ^ /
/ / /
/ /
1 1 !
/ J/
/ /'
/
1 1 1
J /
1
0^ O.' 0.^' 0.fl
60
S
«; 0
I
I
Fig.18 limwr ngTB^vjn of nmMiy
vv
so
fiO
70
^0
50
40
SO
9/1
..B''
/
/ /
1 1 i
/ /
/ /
/ / -1-
/
--V'' f
! ! 1 1 i 1 1
02 0,4 0.6 0,8
0 T.tasiamm + R-dunima o CcAintusis
61
• i q .19
s
\
Linear rcjre'don o/ imrtoMy
70
W
50
0
30
20
iO
/I
•
' ' 1 1 !
,B'
''
+
^
! ! 1
/ r
/ /
/ /
/
>
-0
'
I I I !
0 0. 0.(? 0.fi
62
•ig,20 Imeor ngr^imon 0/ mffiaiHy
I a;
D J.casteum + ILdmivka ^ C.c/unensv*
63
ig.21 imear re^resyion 0/ m<jrMJ,y
s
0
a;
64
S
\ «;
90
70
W
50
0
30
20
Fiq.22 Linear regression o/ morMiy
/ / / •
/r / / /
/
/ J
.-¥'/ ^ /
f K / y
<?'
J L
02 0.4 Oi 0,ff
Discussion
65
DISCUSSION
With the introduction of new agriculture production
technology, the use of purchase input has increased subs
tantially, consequently the farmers are becoming more and
more conscious about input prices and net return from
different crops which they grow and store. According to
Padhee (1996), most conservative estimates of post-harvest
losses in foodgrains in our country are about 10%, a
quantity good enough to feed at least 60 million people and
this is in itself an alarming thing. Thus, it is of
paramount importance to work-out the economics of different
crops in the light of present input-output prices, for
investing huge amounts for the protection of stored
products.
The control of stored grain pests relies mainly on
the use of synthetic insecticides which has serious
drawbacks such as development of genetic resistance, toxic
residues, food contamination hazards, worker safety and the
increasing cost of application. Worldwide experience of
chemical control of insect pest show that the resistance in
pest, almost invariably develop through the sustain
insecticidal usage and selection. Insecticide persistance
problem is growing faster in more species and areas. The
problem is indeed serious in case of stored product insects
66
and the possible occurance of various organochlorinated
insecticides specially lindane and malathion in flour
beetles. Borah and Chahal (1979), reported that Khapra
beetle has developed high level of resistance to fumigant
phosphine in certain parts of Punjab. Thus, resistance to
one or more insecticide has developed in all major pests of
Coleoptera.
The perusal of literature show that the resistance
problem under the present condition of storage pest is very
serious with respect to insecticides specially contact
chemicals. Therefore some alternative methods have been
made for the introduction of safe chemicals, free of conta
mination of grain and residual hazards.
Relative toxicities of chemical and botanical
insecticides are evaluated against the three important pests
of stored product namely, Tribolium castaneum, Rhizopertha
dominica and Callosobruchus chinensis to suggest safe
methods of stored product insect pest control. All the six
chemical insecticides tested against the three insect pests
adversely affected the survival rate, and on an average the
mortality rate increased with the increase of concentration.
The data show that Deltamethrin emerged to be most
toxic against C. chinensis followed by R. dominica and T.
castaneum (LCg . = 0.523, 0.557 and 0.783 respectively) in
67
in comparision to the other two synthetic pyrethroids namely
Fenvalerate and Ralothrin (Table 4-6). These findings are
compatible with that of Rehman and Yadav (1987) and Williams
et al. (1983).
In the present study it is observed that synthetic
pyrethroids are overall more effective than organophosphate
insecticides against lesser grain borer which might be
mainly because of the structural differences between the
two. The results are in accordance with the findings of
Arthur (1992 and 1995) .
In case of T. castaneum> Phosphamindon is evaluated
to be most toxic (LCQ» = 0.608) in comparision to the other
chemical insecticides and the present results are similar to
that of Mukherjee and Saxena (1970). Phosphamindon is 3.002
times more toxic than A. indica (Flower) extract. It is
further evident that when C. chinensis are allowed to feed
on Fenvalerate treated diet, resulted into significant
reduction of the pest population even at lower dosages under
normal storage conditions. Patel et aJ. (1994) also
reported similar findings against C. maculatus•
All the chemical treatments are significantly
superior to plant originated insecticides against the three
pests considered for present course of study, but even very
low dosages of the chemical insecticides are not recommended
68
for the control of stored grain pests because of their
residual effect. However, low dosages of synthetic
pyrethroids can be used for the control of stored grain
pests as they have low mammalian toxicity and residual
effect in comparision to organophosphates and organo-
chlroines.
Synthetic pesticides are notably poisonous and their
use has affected the ecosystem to a considerable extent
because of their persistency and accumulation in the system.
They act upon the system as a foreign body, depressing and
paralysing its function. Some of the pesticides cause
phytotoxicity to different species of agricultural and
ornamental crops, apart from serious damage to the environ
ment. It is further believed that l/5th of the insecticides
are drifted from the agriculture farm fields to residential
areas and water reservoirs.
The disadvantages of the chemical insecticides, led
to test the relative toxicities of few botanical insecti
cides and to compare their efficacy with chemical insecti
cides. Long before the development of synthetic chemicals,
natural chemicals derived from the plant were successfully
employed in pest control. Today more than two thousand
plants showing insecticidal properties are known and they
are mostly wild plants barring a few.
69
Amongst all the three insect pests it is observed
that £. chinensis is most susceptible to the plant extracts.
The susceptibility to the toxic effect of plant material is
different which reflects the complexity of the chemical
composition of the plant material. A. indica (Flower)
extract is not significantly toxic to R. dominica but shows
some toxic effect to the other two pest species. Casida
(1990), reported that the effect of different plant
materials on insect may depend on several factors such as
chemical composition and species susceptibility.
Four of the five materials, evaluated gave promising
results against the three stored grain pests. It is found
that hundred percent of C. chinensis are killed by A. indica
(Leaf) and D. fastuosa (Leaf) extracts. However, lower
dosages of these materials also gave promising results,
reducing the survival rate considerably (Table 3).
While comparing the effect of petroleum ether
extracts of the plant on these three insect pests (Table
4-6) it is observed that highest toxicity level of A. indica
(Fruit) extract is against C. chinensis adults. Jotwani and
Sircar (1965 and 1967) for the first time evaluated the
effects of neem seed kernel powder against T. granarium, R.
dominica, S_. oryzae and C. maculatus •
Neem seed extract has a detrimental effect upon T.
castaneum survival rate, at concentration as low as 0.025%
70
(Table 1). While the highest (1 %) concentration tested on
T. castaneum gave survival rate to be 31.25% as compared to
R. dominica (40%). Devi and Mohandas (1982) reported that
neem oil at 1% concentration afforded protection to rice
against R. dominica for six months. Although the effect of
all the plant insecticides appeared to be concentration
dependent from the result, the variability in insect
response obscured this effect. Girish and Jain (1974)
reported the efficacy of neem kernel powder to protect rice
pests and minimising the storage losses. It is evident from
the results obtained that they are consistent with the above
findings.
The relative mortality rates are signficantly higher
among T. castaneum, confined to a diet containing azadi-
rachtin. The effect of different plant materials on stored
grain pests may depend on several factors such as chemical
ingradients present in the plant extract as well as the
susceptibility of these three species to the toxic and
repellent effects of plant materials. This may reflect the
complexity of the chemical composition. Azadirachtin is
largely responsible for both repellent and toxic activities
in the three tested stored product insect pests. Similar
findings were reported by Xie et. al_. (1995) against T.
castaneum/ when they used neem products.
71
During the present investigation it is observed that
C. procera (Leaf) and D_. f astuosa (Leaf) extracts show
adverse sublethal effects to the three stored product insect
pests. £. procera (Leaf) extract is 1.615, 1.526 and 1.482
times more toxic than A. indica (Flower) extract to T.
castaneum, R. dominica and C. chinensis respectively. The
population of R. dominica reduced drastically with the
application of £. procera (Sharma 1983a and b) . It is
evaluated thatD. fastuosa (Leaf) extract is 1.649, 1.585 and
1.577 times more toxic than A. indica (Flower) extract to T.
castaneum, R. dominica and C. chinensis respectively (Table
4-6). Yadav and Bhatnagar (1987) observed the lethal
effects of datura, neem and ak leaf powders in protecting
the stored cowpea seeds from C. chinensis attack.
The present results indicate that plant based
compounds such as A. indica (Fruit and Leaf), D. fastuosa
(Leaf) and C. procera (Leaf) be suggested to be effective
alternative to conventional synthetic insecticides for the
control of stored product insect pests. There may be a
possible scientific rationale for the incorporation of these
products into grain protection practices. According to Chambers
(1977), the feasibility of use of these materials under field
situations however is still questionable due to the physio
logical sensitivity between laboratory colony insects and field
72
populations which may be markedly different. Thus, there is
a need for more thorough investigation into such practices
to facilitate their improvement and adoptation for the
control of stored product insect pests especially in rural
communities.
Undoubtedly plant derived toxicants are invaluable
sources of potential insecticides and allude to enhancing
the grain protection. These and other plant products be
used within an IPM framework, as indrisciminate use will
result in the same negative consequences as indriscriminant
use of synthetic pesticides. Plant products be considered
in agroecosystems and be implimented as pest management
tool. The study of mode of action of these plant products
is in progress in our laboratory and will contribute to
their use in future in stored grain protection programme.
Summary
73
SUMMARY
Stored grains constitute the major portion of our
food and economy. To meet the demands it is foremost that
the stored products are protected from the insect pests,
which destroy a major part of it. Wheat and rice grains
form the staple food of the people of our country. In order
to improve food grain storage facilities, the effect of
important synthetic chemical and botanical pesticides has
been determined against three important stored product
insect pests viz. Tribolium castaneum, Rhizopertha dominica
and Callosobrunchus chinensis.
The synthetic chemical insecticides were obtained
from the manufactures, Phosphamindon 85% SL (United
Phosphorus Ltd.), Endosulfan 35% EC (Hoechst India Ltd.),
Fenvalerate 20% EC (Kisan Chemicals), Deltamethrin 2.8% EC
(Hoechst India Ltd.) and Ralothrin 25% EC (Rallis India
Ltd.). The botanical insecticides were in the form of
petroleum ether extracts of Azadirachta indica (Leaf,
Flower, and Fruit), Datura fastuosa (Leaf) and Calotropis
procera (Leaf). Various concentrations ranging from 0.005%
to 1% are tested against the three stored product insect
pests, by allowing the adults to feed on the treated diet,
in the insectary at temperature 28+2°C for 15 days.
74
It is concluded that amongst the chemical insecti
cides Phosphamindon is most toxic (LCQ_ = 0.608) against
T. castaneum adults. While R. dominica is most susceptible
to Fenvalerate (LCQ„ = 0.556) and C. chinensis showed the
highest responses at treatment of Endosulfan (LCQ_ = 0.517).
Even though, the lower dosages of the synthetic
chemical insecticides are effective and reduce the pest
population considerably, it is not advisable to use these
because of their high persistency and mammalian toxicity.
The results of the synthetic chemical insecticide treatments
during the present observations suggested that there is a
need for more thorough investigation for the improvement and
adaptation for the control of stored product insects.
Because of the poor storage facilities of traditional farmer
in our country, conventional chemical control methods are
not suitable.
The results of the relative toxicities of the
botanical pesticides indicated that A. indica (Flower)
extract is least toxic to R. dominica, followed by T.
castaneum and C. chinensis with LCQ» values, 2.201, 1.825
and 1.593 respectively. T. castaneum adults are most
susceptible to D. fastuosa (Leaf) (LCg^ = 1.107). While R.
dominica and C. chinensis showed highest response to A.
indica (Leaf) (LCQ^ = 1.208 and 0.936 respectively).
75
Comparision is made amongst, the toxicities of the
two groups of chemicals and it is found that even dosages as
low as 0.5% of A. indica (Leaf), A. indica (Fruit), D.
fastuosa (Leaf) and C. procera (Leaf) are effective and help
lowering the pest population. Since, botanical pesticides
are safer it is advisable to use these against stored
product pests.
Efforts should be made to encourage the farmers and
other people to use these natural products for protecting
stored grains. The commercial formulations of these
botanical insecticides be prepared, so as to facilitate the
uses. However, not much is known regarding the chemistry of
the above plant extracts used in the present investigation.
So, some efforts should be made into screening more plant
products against the stored product pests and to know their
active ingradients.
Acknowledgements
76
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I take this opportunity of putting on record my
immense gratitude and indebtedness to Dr. Absar M. Khan for
his intransigent guidance, dextrous and arduous supervision
and of course for the sound critical assessment of the
manuscript. I indeed express my heart-felt thanks to him
for inculcating into me the scientific manoeuvring and
knacks which could provide me a constant source of
encouragement for further exploration.
I thank Prof. M.M. Agarwal, Dean, Faculty of Life
Sciences for suggestions and help with various aspects of
this work. I am indebted to Prof. A.K. Jafri^and Prof.
Jamil A. Khan, Chairman, Dept. of Zoology, for the extensive
help and laboratory facilities. I am also grateful to the
Director, Institute of Agriculture for moral support.
Words are not enough to express my gratitude to
Dr. M.A. Siddiqui, Reader, Dept. of Economics, A.M.U., who
is always ready to give his sincere advice and help whenever
needed and thanks to Mr. S.K.A. Rizvi, Reader, Dept. of
Zoology, for his encouragement. I offer my special thanks
to Dr. Azam Ansari, Computer Centre, A.M.U., for providing
me the computer facilities which helped me to a great extent
in graphical analysis.
77
I owe my thanks to all my seniors of Zoology
Department, especially Dr. Badruddoja for sparing his
valuable time for the computation of datas, and to my Lab.
colleagues, Mr. Pawan K. Singh, Ms. N. Mittal, Mr. B.D.
Sharma and Mr. Z.H. Khan who were and are always ready to
help me out of my problems.
Obligations are due to both my younger brothers Mr.
Nasir Hasan & Mr. Rashid Hasan and to my friend Mr.Afsahul
Hoda for their love and help they offered in completion of
this dissertation.
I am grateful to Mr. Mazahir Hussain for pains
takingly typing this manuscript and to Mr. Musharraf Ali
Khan for providing outstanding and valuable technical
assistance.
( NASREEN BANO )
- e s - ^ Y W^
References Cited
78
REFERENCES CITED
Abraham, E.V. & Padmanaban, M.D. 1968. Bionomics and
control of diamond back moth, Plutella maculipellis
Curtis. Ind. J. Ent. 38: 513-519.
Agarwal, I.L. 1990. Ovicidal activity of some phytochemi-
cals on Mylocerus undecimpustulatus Faust. Ind. J. Ent.
52(1): 35-38.
Annapurna, D.S., Jyengar, S., Nagabhushan, Rao & Bholerao,
U.T. 1989. Antimicrobial activity of leaf extract of
Annona squomosa. Pesticides: 43-47.
Arthur, F.H. 1995. Aeration alone versus chlorpyrifos-
methyl treatment followed by aeration for wheat stored
Georgia: Simulated field test. J. Econ. Ent. 88(6):
1764-1770.
Arthur, F.M. 1992. Control of Lesser Grain Borer
(Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) with Chlorpyrifos-Methyl,
Bioresmethrin and Resmethrin: Effect of chlorpyrifos-
methyl resistance and environmental degradation. >J.
Econ. Ent. 85(4): 1471-1475.
Baitha, A., Hameed, S.F. & Singh, R. 1993. Effectiveness of
neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.) products against
rice hispa, Dicladispa armigera Oliv. and Hieroglyphus
nigrorepletus Bol. J. Ent. Res. 17(2): 75-80.
Banerji, R., Misra, C. & Nigam, S.K. 1985. Role of
indigenous plant material in pest control. Pesticides
19(3): 32-38.
Basit, A., Rahman, A., Phukan, E. & Gupta, M. 1987. Control
of rice stem borer (Scirpophaga incertules) (Wlk.) and
whorl maggot (Hydrellia phillippina) (Ferin) with
granular and foliar insecticides. J. Res. Assam Agric.
Univ. 5(2): 202-203.
79
Bell, E.A., Fellows, L.E. & Simmonds, M.S-J. 1990. Natural
products from plants for the control of insect pests,
337-350. TM E. Hodgson and R.J. Kuhr [eds.]. Safer
insecticides. M. Dekker, New York.
Borah* B. ft Chahal/ B.S. 1979. Development of resistance in
Troqoderma granarium Everts to phosphine in the Punjab,
FAQ Plant Prot. Bull. 27: 77-80.
Bowers, W.S., Ohta, T., Cleere, J.S. & Mersella, P.A. 1976.
Discovery of insect anti-juvenile hormones in plants.
Plants yield a potential fourth generation insecticide.
Science 193(4253) ; 542-547.
Butani, D.K., Jotwani, M.G. & Verma, S. 1977. Insect pests
of vegetables and their control. Cole Crops. Pesti
cides 11(5): 19-24.
Casida, J.H. 1990. Pesticides mode of action: evidence for
and implications of a finite number of biochemical
targets, pp.11-12 _iri Casida, J.E. [Ed.] Pesticides and
alternatives: innovative chemical and biological
approaches to pest control. Amsterdam, Elsevier.
Chcunbers, D.L. 1977. Quality control in mass rearing. Annu.
Rev. Entomol. 22: 289-308.
Champ, B.R. & Dyte, C.E. 1976. Report of the FAO global
survey of pesticide susceptibility of stored grain
pest. Plant Prod. Prot. Bull.
Chandra, Harish & Ahmad, S.M. 1986. Effect of some plant
material on the development of rice moth Corcyra
cephalonica Entomon. 2(4): 273-276.
Delobel, A. & Malonga, P. 1987. Insecticidal properties of
six plant materials against Caryedon serratus (01.)
(Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 23: 173-
176.
80
Devi, D.A. & Mohandas, N. 1982. Relative efficacy of some
antifeedants and deterrents against insect pests of
stored paddy. Entomon. 7: 261.
Dorn, A., Rademacher, J.M- & Sehn, E. 1986. Effects of
azadirachtin on the moulting cycle, endocrine system
and ovaries in the last instar larvae of the milkweed
bug, Oncopeltus fasciatus. J. Insect Physiol. 32:
231-238.
El-Rafie, M.S., Abo El-Ghar, M.R. & Metwally, F.A. 1969.
Evaluation of certain grain protectants under common
methods of storage in Egypt. Bull. Entomol. Soc.
Egypt,Econ. Ser. No. 3: 135-148.
Girish, O.K. & Jain, S.K. 1974. Studies on efficacy of Neem
Kernel Powder against stored grain pests. Bull. Grain
Tech. 12: 226-228.
Grainge, M. & Ahmed, S. 1988. Handbook of plants with pest-
control properties. Wiley, New York.
Jacob, Sosamma & Shiela, M.K. 1993. A note on the protection
of stored rice from the lesser grain Borer,
Rhizopertha dominica Fabr. by indigenous plant
products. Indian J. Ent. 55(3): 337-339.
JJha, A.N. & Singh, H.N. 1984. Toxicity of seven different
insecticides against adult Tribolium castaneum
(Herbst). Indian J. Ent.. 46(4): 395-397.
Jilani, G. & Saxena, R.C. 1990. Repellent and feeding
deterrent effects of turmeric oil, sweetflag oil, neem
oil, and a neem based insecticide against lesser grain
borer (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 83:
629-634.
81
Johri, Rita, Johri, P.K. & Bajpal Abha. 1994. Bio-efficacy
of some plant materials on the development of Mustard
Saw fly/ Athalia proxima Klug. (Hymenoptera: Tenthre-
dinidae). Nat. Sym. Pest Agric. Imp, and Mang. 19-21
Feb. pp. 51.
Jotwani, M.G. & Sircar, P. 1965. Neem as protectant against
stored grain pests infesting wheat seed. Indian J. Ent.
27(2): 160-164.
1967. Neem as a protectant against bruchid, Callosobruchus
maculatus (Fabricius) infesting some legumes. Indian J.
Ent. 29(1): 21-24.
Kareem, A.A., Saxena, R.C. & Bonocodin, M-E.M. 1988. Neem
seed kernel extract and neem seed bitters on
oviposition and development of green leafhoppers (GLH)
and brown planthopper (BPH). Int. Rice Res. Newsl.
14 (6): 26.
Khaire, V.M., Kachare, B.V. & Mote, O.N. 1992. Efficacy of
different vegetable oils as grain protectants against
pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis L. in increasing
storability of pigeonpea. J_. Stored Prod. Res. 28: 153-
156.
Koul, O., Isman, M.B. & Ketkar, CM. 1990. Properties and
uses of neem, Azadirachta indica. Can. J. Bot. 68:
1-11.
Kumari TVrchana & Kumar Uday. 1994. Insecticidal action of
some botanicals. Nat. Sym. Pest. Agric. Imp. Mang.
19-21 Feb. pp. 39.
Mathews, G.A. 1993. Insecticide application in stores, pp.
305-315. In G.A. Mathews and E.G. Hislop [eds.),
Application technology for crop protection. CAB,
London.
82
Metcalf, C.L., Flint, W.P. & Metcalf, R.L. 1962- Destructive
and useful insects. Their Habits and Control. Mc Graw
Hill, New York.
Metcalf, R.L. 1951. Destructive and useful insects. Mc.Graw
Hill, New York.
Mukerjee, A.B. & Saxena, V.S. 1970. Relative toxicity of
some organophosphorus insecticides to the adults of
Tribolium castaneum Herbst.(Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae),
a pest of stored cereals. Indian J. Entomol. 32: 246-
250.
Mukerjee, S.K- & Roy, N.K. 1975. Trends in plant diseases
control in India. Pesticides Ann.; 1-7.
Nair, G.K. 1996. Pesticides are harmful but farmers prefer
it. Ijl Times of India 1 Mar. 19 96. pp.3.
Padhee, A-K. 1996. Management of Stored grain pests-1. In
Employment News Weekly 4-10 May 1996 pp. 1-2.
Pandey, N.D., Mathur, K.K., Pandey Sanjeev & Tripathi, R.A.
1986. Effect of some plant extracts against pulse
beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis Linnaeus. Indian J.
Ent. 48(1): 85-90.
Patel, S.L. 1975. Recent advances in application techniques.
Pesticides Ann. : 22-31.
Patil, R.K., Nawale, R.N. & Mote, U.N. 1994. Efficacy of
synthetic pyrethroids as, seed protectants of Pigoen pea
against pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus Fab.
Indian J. Ent. 56(1): 51-57.
Perkins, J.H. 1985. Naturally occurring pesticides and the
pesticide crisis. 1945 to 1980, pp. 297-325. ni N.B.
Mandana [ed.]. Handbook of natural pesticides: methods
Vol. 1. Theory, practice and detection. CRC, Baco
Raton, FL.
83
Prakash, A. & Jagdeshwari, Rao 1985. Evaluation of the
plant products as antifeedents against rice storage
insects. Nat. Sym. Pest. Resi. Environ. Pollution,
held at S.D. College, Muzaffarnagar (U.Pj 2-4 Oct,
1985.
Prakash, A., Jagdeshwari, Rao & Kulshrestha, J.P. 1986.
Evaluation of plant products for management of rice
storage insects. Presented in Research Planning Works
on Bat. Pest Control in Rice Based Cropping System on
9-11 June (1986) at IRRI, Manila, Philippines, pp. 15.
Prakash, Anand, Jagdeshwari, Rao, Gupta, S.P. & Behera, J.
1990. Evaluation of botanical pesticides as grain
protectant against rice weevil Sitopilus oryzae L. Nat.
Sym. Prob. Pros. Bot. Pest. Intg. Pest Mang. CTRI
21-22 Jan. pp. 29-30.
Rahman, Md., Mahbubar & Yadav, T.D. 1987. Toxicity of
solutions and dusts of four synthetic pyrethroids
against Callosabruchus maculatus Fab. and Calloso-
bruchus chinensis Linn. Indian J. Ent. 49(1): 137-144.
Rajasekaran, B. & Kumarswami, Y. 1985. Antifeedant
properties of certain plant products against Spodoptera
litura. F. Proc. Natn. Seminar Behav. Physiol. Appr.
Mrmt Crop pests TNAU: 25-28.
Rembold, H. 1988. Isomeric azadirachtins and their mode of
action, pp. 47-67. In. M. Jacobson [ed.], Phytochemical
pesticides. Vol. 1. The neem tree. CRC, Boca Raton.
Sahoo, B.K. & Rout, G. 1988. Comparative efficacy of some
synthetic pyrethroids and organophosphates against rice
weevil Sitophilus oryzae.
Sanders, G.S. 1982. The basis of selective toxicity and
resistance to arthropods. Zimbabwe Sci. News, 6(11):
259-262.
84
Sankhyan, S. & Thakur, A.K. 1993. Effect of some organo-
phosphatic insecticides as wheat protectants against
important stored product insects. Pest. Mang. Econ.
Zoo. 1(2): 100-104.
Saxena, R.C., Jilani, G. & Abdul-Kareem, A. 1988. Effects
of neem on stored grain insects, pp. 97-111. Tn M.
Jacobson ted.], Focus on phytochemical pesticides,
Vol. 1. The neem tree-CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
£>chmutterer, H. 1990. Properties and potential of natural
pesticides from the neem tree, Azadirachta indica. Ann.
Rev. Ent. 35: 271-297.
Sharma, Y. 19B3a- A new indigenous plant antifeedant
against Rhizopertha dominica Fab. Bull. Grain. Technol.
21(3): 223-225.
1983b. Effect of AAK, Calotropis procera on the population
build up of Rhizopertha dominica. J. Adv. Zool. 4(2):
123-124.
Singh, D.S. & Sircar, P. 1980. Relative toxicity of pyre-
throids to Lipaphis erysimi Kalt. and Aphis craccivora
Koch. Indian J. Ent. 42(4): 597-605.
Singh, H.N., Singh, H.K. & Chhatoo. 1977. Estimation of
losses in wheat grain by insect pest during storage in
the vicinity of Varanasi. Indian J. Ent. 39(2): 158-
164.
Singh, R.S. & Singh Shivendra. 1994. Neem a boon for
management of insect pests in the developing countries.
Nat. Sym. Pest. Agric. Imp. Mang. 19-21 Feb. pp, 52.
Singh, S.R., Luse, R.A., Leuschner, K. & Nanggu 1978.Ground
nut oil treatment, for the control of Callosopruchus
maculatus (F.) during cowpea storage. J. Stored Prod.
Res. 14(2/3): 77-80.
85
Tyler, P.S. & Binns, T.J. 1977. The toxicity of seven
organophosphorus insecticides and lindane to eighteen
species of stored product beetles LCol.j. J. Stored
Prod. Res. 13(1): 39-43.
Verma, A.N. & Sindhu, G.S. 1968. Chemical control of
diamond back moth, Plutella xylostella (L. ) infesting
curly flower in Haryana. Indian £. Ent. 34: 206-212.
Ware, G.W. 1986. Fundamentals of pesticides. Thompson
Publishing, Fransno, CA.
Warthen, J.D. Jr. 1979. Azadirachta indica; a source of
insect feeding inhibitors and growth regulators. U.S.
Pep. Agric. Rev. Man. ARM-NE-4.
Weaver, D.K., Dunkel, F.V., Ntezurubanza, L., Jackson, L.L.
£ Stock, D.T. 1991. The efficacy of linalool, a major
component of freshly-milled Ocimum canum Sims
(Lamiaceae), for protection against post harvest damage
by certain stored product Coleoptera. J. Stored Prod.
Res. 27: 213-220.
Williams, P., Semple, R.L. & Amos, T.G. 1982. Relative
toxicity and persistence of one carbamate and three
organophosphate insecticides on concrete, wood and iron
surfaces for control of grain insects. Gen. Appl.
Entomol. 14: 35-40.
1983. Relative toxicity and persistence of three pyre-
throid insecticides on concrete, wood and iron surfaces
for control of grain insects. Gen. Appl. Entomol. 15:
7-10.
Xie, Y.S., Fields, P.G. & Isman, M.B. 1995. Repellency and
toxicity of Azadirachtin and neem concentrates to three
stored-product beetles. J. Econ. Entomol. 88(4): 1024-
1031.
86
*Xie, Y.S., Fields, P.G., Isman, M.B., Chen, W.K. & Zhang, X.
1995. InsecticJdal activity of Melia toosendan
extracts and toosendanin against three stored-product
insects. J. Stored. Prod. Res. (in press).
Yadav, S.R.S. & Bhatnagar, K.N. 1987- A preliminary study
on the protection of stored cowpea grains against pulse
beetle by indigenous plant products. Pesticides. 21(8):
25-28.
Yadav, T.C. 1985. Antiovipositional and ovicidaltoxicity of
neem oil against three sp. of Callosobruchus. Neem
News. 2: 5-6.
Yadav, T.D., Singh, S., Khanna, S.C. & Pawar, C.S. 1983.
Toxicity of dusts of organophosphorus insecticides
against stored product beetles. Indian J. Entomol.
45(3): 247-252.
Zanno, P.R., Miura, I., Nakanishi, K. & Elder, D.L. 1975.
Structure of insect phagorepellent azadirachtin:
application of PRFT/CWD carbon-13 nuclear magnetic
resonance. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 97: 1975-1977.
Zehnder, G. & Warthen J.D. 1988. Feeding inhibition and
mortality effects of neem-seed extract on the Colorado
potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Econ.
Entomol. 81: 1040-1044.
Zettler, J.L. & Cuperus, G.W. 1990. Pesticides resistance
in Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) and
Rhizopertha dominica (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) in
wheat. J. Econ. Entomol. 83: 1677-1681.
* Original not seen