See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315935516

Population abundance and eco-friendly management of tomato fruit borer,

Helicoverpa armigera Hb. on tomato under West Bengal conditions

Article  in  Journal of Entomological Research · March 2017

DOI: 10.5958/0974-4576.2017.00007.X

CITATIONS READS

0 33

2 authors, including:

Suvash Bala
Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya
21 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Working on plant parasitic nematode and mite View project

pest management approaches View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Suvash Bala on 23 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DOI : 10.5958/0974-4576.2017.00007.X
©
J. ent. Res., 41 (1) : 39-43 (2017)

Population abundance and eco-friendly management of tomato fruit borer,

Helicoverpa armigera Hb. on tomato under West Bengal conditions

Suvash Chandra Bala* and Anirban Sarkar1

AINP on Agricultural Acarology, Directorate of Research, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Kalyani,
Nadia - 741 235, West Bengal, India

ABSTRACT
The larval population of tomato fruit borer, H. armigera first appeared in the field during 3rd standard
metrological week (SMW) which gradually increased and reached its peak (7.37 larvae per plant) during 12th
SMW i.e. on 21.3.16. Correlation between various abiotic factors viz., maximum relative humidity (r = -0.38),
minimum relative humidity (r = -0.21) and rainfall (r = -0.33) with fruit borer larval population was found to
be negative where as maximum temperature (r = 0.88), minimum temperature (r = 0.86) and sunshine hour
(r = 0.34) were positively correlated with H. armigera larval population. Application of Beauveria bassiana
1.50% LF (Bio-Power) at three different doses along with neem and quinalphos revealed that upto 80% pest
mortality over untreated control can be obtained when Beauveria bassiana 1.50% LF was applied @ 4000 ml/ha.

Key words : Tomato fruit borer, seasonal incidence, abiotic factor, Beauveria bassiana, management.

INTRODUCTION and their relevance to human health are receiving

Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) is one
of the most important and remunerative vegetable,
grown both as commercially and in kitchen gardens.
Tomato is a good source of vitamins A, B and C,
also helps in healing of wounds due to antibiotic
properties (Baloch, A.F., 1994). Tomato is attacked
by a number of pests including Tomato fruit
borer (Helicoverpa armigera). This cosmopolitan
polyphagous larva of fruit borer can attack tomato
fruit at any stage of growth, thus decreasing its
market value (Gajete et al., 2004). Larvae affect
almost all the aerial parts of the tomato plant from
the early growth till to the fruit maturing stage (Lal
et al., 1996, Tripathy et al., 1999). Loss incurred
to growing tomato crop may extend up to 51.20
per cent in Punjab (Sing and Narang, 1990); 40-50
per cent in Bangalore (Khader khan et al., 1997)
and 32.52 per cent in Madhya Pradesh (Ganguly
et al., 1998). The indiscriminate use of synthetic
chemical pesticides to control this pest resulted in
development of resistance (Armes et al., 1992, 1994)
and harmful pesticide residues in fruits. Ecological
problems created by chemical insect control methods
*Corresponding author’s E-mail: sb.bckv@rediffmail.com
1
AICRP on Potato Directorate of Research, B.C.K.V., Kalyani, Nadia - 741
235, West Bengal, India
serious attention everywhere. Various pathogens,
including viruses, protozoa, fungi and nematodes
can be used to regulate pest population. Biological
control of pests and vectors has been studied to a
limited extent for many years with several notable
successes, of which microbiological control is one
aspect. The development of insecticide resistance
in pest and vector population, the damage caused
to non-target organisms and the realization of other
environmental hazards of chemical insecticides have
led to an increasing interest in biological, including
microbiological control methods. Keeping this in
view, field study was carried out on population
dynamics of Helicoverpa armigera Hb. and bio-
efficacy of an eco-friendly product namely Bio-Power
(Beauveria bassiana 1.50% LF) against this pest.
Materials and Methods
To study the population dynamics of H. armigera,
tomato seedling was planted with a spacing of 60
× 90 cm in ten different plots measuring about 3
× 4.5 m at the Central Research Farm, BCKV,
Gayespur (23°N latitude, and 89°E, 9.75 m from
MSL), Nadia, West Bengal for consecutive two
years. One of the popular variety ‘Pathar Kuchi’ was
 Journal of Entomological Research, March 2017

selected for whole experiment and nursery seed Table 1. Incidence of tomato fruit borer (H. armigera) on
bed was raised. Standard Agronomic practices as tomato at Gayeshpur farm, BCKV, Kalyani.
per the recommendations were followed. Seedlings SMW Date of Crop H. armigera
of three weeks age were transplanted in the main observation stage larva per plant
field. Data was collected at seven days interval 50 13.12.15 VS 0
from three randomly selected plant of each plot.
51 20.12.15 VS 0
To evaluate the bio-efficacy of Beauveria 52 27.12.15 VS 0
bassiana 1.50% LF (Bio-Power) against Helicoverpa
1 03.1.16 VS 0
armigera Hb. field experiments were conducted
2 10.1.16 VS 0
at the Central Research Farm, BCKV, Gayespur
(23°N latitude, and 89°E, 9.75 m from MSL), Nadia, 3 17.1.16 VS 0.27
West Bengal. The field trial was conducted for two 4 24.1.16 RS 1.30
consecutive years during rabi season in randomized 5 31.1.16 RS 4.33
block design (RBD) with six treatments including 6 07.2.16 RS 4.17
an untreated control with four replications in a plot 7 14.2.16 RS 4.47
size of 20 m2. Beauveria bassiana 1.50% LF (Bio-
8 21.2.16 RS 5.37
Power) was applied at three different dosages two
times each at 15 days interval. These spraying 9 28.2.16 MS 6.17
were done starting from 25 days after transplanting 10 7.3.16 MS 6.47
during dawn and dusk. All the precautions were 11 14.3.16 MS 7.14
taken before and during spraying so as the product 12 21.3.16 MS 7.37
should reach the target pest. The observations were SMW = standard metrological week; VS = vegetative stage, RS
recorded on randomly selected five plants in each = reproductive stage, MS = Maturity stage
replication marked with tags. The data on the number
of larval population of H. armigera on five plants minimum relative humidity (r = -0.21) and rainfall (r
were noted before spray and 7 and 14 days after = -0.33) with fruit borer larval population was found
spray. Spraying was done twice. Simultaneously total to be negative where as maximum temperature (r =
number of fruits and fruits damaged by H. armigera 0.88), minimum temperature (r = 0.86) and sunshine
were counted after 7 and 14 days of each spray. hour (r = 0.34) were positively correlated with H.
From the data, percent fruit damage was calculated. armigera larval population (Table 2). The present
At each harvest the yield of tomato fruits was also findings are in line with the finding of Kadu, et al.,
noted separately in each treatment and yield data 1987, who found that the activity of H. armigera
was cumulated for statistical analysis. The collected on tomato enhanced with the rise of temperature.
data was subjected to ANOVA (Analysis of Variance)
after suitable transformation to square root values. Bio-efficacy Study : The results obtained from the
field experiment during rabi season on bio-efficacy
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 2. Correlation and regression coefficient of H.
Population Dynamics : Tomato fruit borer, H. armigera on tomato with weather factor during 2015-16.
armigera larval population first appeared in the field Weather factors Correlation Regression
during 3rd standard metrological week (SMW) (Table (r) coefficient by (x)
1). After that the population gradually increased and Maximum temperature (°C) 0.88 4.04
reached its peak (7.37 larvae per plant) during 12th Minimum temperature (°C) 0.86 1.80
SMW i.e. on 21.03.16. When the population first
Maximum relative humidity -0.38 -16.08
appeared in the field the crop was in vegetative
(%)
stage and the pest was highly active during maturity
Minimum relative humidity -0.21 -0.54
stage (Fig. 1). The present finding is agreed with
(%)
Hath and Das, 2004 who reported that 3rd week
of March is the most active period of H. armigera Bright sunshine (hours) 0.34 0.68
on tomato. Correlation between various abiotic Rainfall (mm) -0.33 -0.35
factors viz., maximum relative humidity (r = -0.38), Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

40
 Management of tomato fruit borer

Fig. 1. Population fluctuation of H. armigera on tomato

of ‘Bio-power’ (B. bassiana) against tomato fruit
borer (H. armigera) are presented in Tables 3 to
6. The experimental results obtained from first year
of study showed that the initial population of H.
armigera was almost same irrespective of treatments,
which varying from 4.50 to 5.50 larvae per plant.
All the three different dosages of Bio-Power viz.
1500 ml/ha, 2000 ml/ha and 4000 ml/ha caused
reduction of larval population and the population
was reduced to the extent of 79.55 per cent over
untreated control after second spray, while in case
of Neem Oil and Quinalphos 47 and 33 per cent
population was reduced over untreated control,
respectively (Table 3). The best result was obtained
when Beauveria bassiana 1.50% LF was applied @
4000 ml/ha. The second best result was obtained
when the same products was applied @ 2000 ml/
ha and reduced the pest population up to 77.27%
(Table 3). The same trend of result was obtained after
second year of study though the percent reduction

Table 3. Efficacy of (Bio-power) Beauveria bassiana 1.50% LF against H. armigera (larval population) - 1st yr.
Treatments Dosage H. armigera larval population/plant
(ml/ha) Pre I spray II spray Percent reduction
treatment over control
population 7 DAS 14 DAS Mean 7 DAS 14 DAS Mean I spray II spray
T1 : Bio-Power 1500 5.50 7.50 4.00 5.75 3.75 5.00 4.37 30.30 60.23
(13.42) (15.85) (11.81) (13.87) (11.10) (12.76) (12.07)
T2 : Bio-Power 2000 5.25 4.00 3.00 3.50 2.50 2.50 2.5 57.58 77.27
(13.20) (11.42) (9.90) (10.78) (8.98) (8.98) (9.10)
T3 : Bio-Power 4000 4.50 3.75 2.25 3.0 1.75 2.75 2.25 63.64 79.55
(12.25) (11.10) (9.44) (9.97) (7.53) (9.44) (8.63)
T4 : Neem based EC 1500 5.00 5.25 4.50 4.88 6.75 5.00 5.88 40.91 46.59
containing Azadirachtin 1% (12.89) (13.15) (11.81) (12.76) (14.80) (12.64) (14.03)
T5 : Quinalphos 25% EC 1000 5.50 7.50 5.50 6.50 6.00 8.75 7.375 21.21 32.95
(13.42) (15.85) (14.97) (14.77) (13.70) (17.19) (15.76)
T6 : Untreated Control 5.25 8.75 7.75 8.25 10.25 11.75 11 - -
(13.11) (17.10) (16.86) (16.69) (11.75) (19.73) (19.37)
SEm ± ns 0.95 0.85 - 1.52 1.44 - - -
CD at 5% - 2.81 2.49 - 4.47 4.22 - - -
Values are mean of four replications; values in parentheses are square root transformed values; DAT = Days after spray

41
 Journal of Entomological Research, March 2017

Table 4. Efficacy of (Bio-power) Beauveria bassiana 1.50% LF against H. armigera (larval population) - 2nd yr.
Treatments Dosage H. armigera larval population/plant
(ml/ha) Pre I spray II spray Percent Reduction
treatment over control
population 7 DAS 14 DAS Mean 7 DAS 14 DAS Mean I spray II spray
T1 : Bio-Power 1500 7.15 4.55 4.05 4.30 3.00 2.65 2.82 55.98 65.60
(2.67) (2.13)* (2.02) (2.07) (1.73) (1.62) (1.67)
T2 : Bio-Power 2000 6.85 3.80 2.70 3.25 1.70 1.55 1.62 66.73 80.24
(2.61) (1.94) (1.64) (1.80) (1.30) (1.24) (1.27)
T3 : Bio-Power 4000 6.95 3.70 2.10 2.90 1.65 1.40 1.52 70.31 81.46
(2.63) (1.92) (1.45) (1.70) (1.28) (1.18) (1.23)
T4 : Neem based EC 1500 7.10 5.15 3.95 4.55 3.45 3.30 3.37 53.42 58.90
containing Azadirachtin 1% (2.66) (2.27) (1.99) (2.13) (1.85) (1.81) (1.83)
T5 : Quinalphos 25% EC 1000 6.60 5.20 4.45 4.82 3.75 3.35 3.55 50.66 56.70
(2.56) (2.28) (2.11) (2.19) (1.93) (1.83) (1.88)
T6 : Untreated Control 6.95 9.45 10.10 9.77 8.20 8.20 8.20 - -
(2.63) (3.07) (3.18) (3.12) (2.86) (2.86) (2.86)
SEm ± NS 0.031 0.025 - 0.025 0.42 - - -
CD at 5% - 0.092 0.072 - 0.077 0.12 - - -
Values are mean of four replications; values in parentheses are square root transformed values; DAT = Days after spray

Table 5. Impact of Beauveria bassiana 1.50% LF on healthy fruits yield of Tomato- 1st yr.
Treatments Dose Tomato fruit yield Tomato fruit yield Percent yield increase
(ml/ha) (kg/plot) (q/ha) over control
T1 : Bio-Power 1500 43.83 (6.62) 219 9.58
T2 : Bio-Power 2000 46.44 (6.81) 232 16.09
T3 : Bio-Power 4000 47.90 (6.92) 240 19.75
T4 : Neem based EC containing 1500 41.56 (6.44) 208 3.89
Azadirachtin 1%
T5 : Quinalphos 25% EC 1000 45.78 (6.76) 229 14.44
T6 : Untreated Control - 39.90 (6.31) 200 -
SEm ± - 0.016 - -
CD at 5% - 0.051 - -
Values are mean of four replications; values in parentheses are square root transformed values

Table 6. Impact of Beauveria bassiana 1.50% LF on healthy fruits yield of Tomato- 2nd yr.
Treatments Dose Tomato fruit yield Tomato fruit yield Percentage of yield
ml/ha kg/plot q/ha increase over control
T1 : Bio-Power 1500 43.33 (6.62)* 216.65 11.81
T2 : Bio-Power 2000 45.60 (6.79) 228.0 17.67
T3 : Bio-Power 4000 48.35 (6.99) 241.75 24.47
T4 : Neem based EC containing 1500 41.30 (6.47) 206.00 6.58
Azadirachtin 1%
T5 : Quinalphos 25% EC 1000 43.95 (6.67) 219.75 13.41
T6 : Untreated Control - 38.75 (6.26) 193.75 -
S.Em. ± - 0.018 - -
CD at 5% - 0.054 - -
Values are mean of four replications; Values in parentheses are square root transformed values

42
 Management of tomato fruit borer
of population was little bit higher than the first year
(Table 4). The highest percent of reduction (81.46)
was observed when Bio-power was applied @ 4000
ml/ha after second spray.
Tomato fruit yield : In respect of fruit yield of
tomato, Bio-Power treated plots showed relatively
higher (9.58-19.75%) yield than that of untreated
control (Table 5). The highest yield (240 q/ha)
was obtained in Bio-Power @ 4000 ml/ha treated
plot which was statistically at per when the same
product was applied @ 2000 ml/ha (232 q/ha). The
same trend of result was obtained in second year
of study (Table 6).
References
Armes, N.J., Banerjee, S.K., DeSouza, K.R., Jadav,
D.R., King, A.B.S., Krinthi, K.R., Regupathy,
A., Surulivelu, T. and Venugopalrao, N. 1994.
Insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armigera
in India: Recent developments. In: Proceedings
of Brighton Crop Protection Conference-Pests
and Diseases, Thronton Heath, UK, British
Crop Protection Council Publications. pp.
437-442.
Armes, N.J., Jadav, D.R., Bond, G.S. and King,
A.B.S., 1992. Insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa
armigera in Souht India. Pesticide Sci., 34:
355-64.
Baloch, F.A. 1994. Vegetable crops. In: Horticulture.
National Book Foundation, Islamabad, 508 p.
Gajete, T.D., Gajete, L.B., Irabagon, J.R. and
Tiburcio, E.B. 2004. Technoguide for tomato
production. In: Technoguides for Agric.
Production and Livelihood Projects. CLSU Res.
43
View publication stats
Office, RET, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva
Ecija, pp. 58-65.
Ganguly, R.N. and Dubey, V.K. 1998. Management of
tomato fruit borer Helicoverpa armigera Hubner
in Chhattishgarh of Madhya Pradesh. Insect
Environ., 4: 25.
Hath, T.K. and Das, B.R 2004. Incidence of insect
pests in late planted tomato under terai agro-
ecology of West Bengal. Environ. Ecol., 22:
136-40.
Kadu, N.R, Radke, S.G. and Borle, M.N. 1987.
Effect of temperature on the development of
Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.). Indian J. Ent., 49:
535-43.
Khaderkhan, H., Natarajan, M.S. and Nagaraja, G.N.
1997. Economics of IPM in tomato, 1st Nat. Symp.
On pest management in Horticultural crops:
Environmental implications and thrusts, October
15-17, Bangalore, 8 p.
Lal, O.P. and Lal, S.K. 1996. Failure of control
measures against Heliothis armigera (Hubner)
infesting tomato in heavy pesticidal application
areas in Delhi and satellite towns in Western
Uttar Pradesh and Haryana (India). J. ent. Res.,
20: 355-64.
Sing, D. and Narang, D.D. 1990. Control of tomato
fruit borer Heliothis armigera Hubner with
synthetic pyrithroids. Indian J. Ent., 52: 534-40.
Tripathy, M.K., Kumar, R. and Singh, H.N. 1999. Host
range and population dynamics of Helicoverpa
armigera Hübn. In eastern Uttar Pradesh. J.
Appl. Zool. Res., 10: 22-24.
(Received : January 16, 2017; Accepted : February 6,
2017)