Author: S.A. Landge1, K.S. Pagire2* and S.K. Ghodke3
Journal Name: International Journal on Emerging Technologies, 16(1): 83–89, 2025
Address:
1Assistant Professor, AICRP on Forage Crops and Utilization,
Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri (Maharashtra), India.
2Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Entomology,
College of Agriculture, Gadchiroli, Dr. PDKV, Akola (Maharashtra), India.
3Assistant Professor of Soil Science, Interfaculty Department of Irrigation Water Management, PGI,
Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri (Maharashtra), India.
(Corresponding author: K.S. Pagire*)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.65041/IJET.2025.16.1.11
Download PDF
An experiment was conducted to study comparative efficacy of selected chemicals, botanical and biopesticides against fall armyworm in Maize. The trial was designed and evaluated in different locations Rahuri, Jhansi, Ludhiana, Dharwad & Bhubaneshwar under All India Co-ordinated Research Project on forage crops & Utilization in India. The results of field experiment concluded that, among the different treatments the lowest population of S. frugiperda were recorded in the treatment of emamectin benzoate 5 SG @ 5 ml/10 lit of water (16.53 % infestation of plants) which was significantly superior over rest of the treatments. Next best treatment recorded was chlorpyriphos 20 EC (26.36%) @ 20 ml/10 lit of water. The treatment Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% (30.73%) WP@ 75 g/10 lit of water followed by Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% WP @ 75 g/ 10 lit of water (31.30%), Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (32.13%) @ 75 g/10 lit of water, Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (32.96%) and Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP (35.10%) in treated plots, respectively.
Invasive species, fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, biological invasions, prevention, management.
Zea mays, or maize, originated in central Mexico. The Poaceae family of grasses includes it. Because of its more productive growth habit and versatility, it is the most significant cereal crop grown worldwide. Among growers, it is becoming more and more popular. Worldwide, 193.7 million hectares are used to grow maize, which yields 5.75 tons per hectare. Presently, the annual production of maize kernels is about 1147.7 million tones (Anon., 2020). In addition to being widely used as fodder, both as green and silage, maize is used as food by tribal tribes in Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, and Bihar. However, a number of biotic and abiotic issues currently impede maize production. About 141 insect pests can harm maize crops in different ways from planting to harvesting, but only a dozen of these are harmful enough to need management. Many biotic and abiotic issues are impeding maize productivity nowadays (Kumar et al., 2015; Reddy and Trivedi 2008). Because of its infamous and polyphagous behavior, the recently introduced insect fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, is a major issue and has become an invasive problem worldwide. Tropical and subtropical America is home to the Fall Armyworm (FAW), which has been a nuisance in the US since 1797. Sharanabasappa et al. (2018) made the first reports of this new invasive pest in India. It impacts maize at every stage of development, from seedling to ear formation. By scraping and skeletonizing the top epidermis of opening leaves, FAW larvae produce papery patches and a silvery translucent membrane.
Because the FAW moth populations may migrate at a rate of 100 kilometers every night and 500 km before producing eggs, they can swiftly spread to new locations (Johnson, 1987). Depending on the weather, the pest's life cycle takes 30 to 45 days to complete. The life cycle may last up to 60-90 days in colder climates. An average of 1500 eggs are laid by the female moth and attached to the leaves. In warmer climates, the egg stage lasts only two to three days. Prior to pupation, the FAW generally goes through six larval instars, or stages. Depending on the weather, particularly temperature and humidity, the complete larval stage lasts between 14 and 30 days (Manjula et al., 2019). Due to the extensive use of chemical pesticides, beneficial insects, wildlife, and human health have all suffered worldwide, and insect resistance to pesticides has spread widely. Bio-pesticides are a great substitute for conventional pesticides because they are long-lasting and do not affect animals or the environment. Considering all relevant information, the experiment was carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of several concentrations of chemical and microbial biopesticides as well as one botanical to be studied in a field condition.
The field trial was conducted on comparative efficacy of selected chemicals, botanical and biopesticides against Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda in maize. The trial was designed and evaluated in different locations under All India Co-ordinated Research Project on forage crops & Utilization in India i.e., Rahuri, Jhansi, Ludhiana, Dharwad & Bhubaneshwar during Kharif season (2019, 2020 and 2021). A Randomized Block Design experiment was conducted with three replications and ten treatments. African tall maize was sown, with a net area of 4.0 × 3.0 m and a 30-cm gap between two rows and a 10-cm gap inside each row. Every regular agronomical procedure was followed, with the exception of pest management methods. When the larval population reached ETL, the first application of pesticides was sprayed at the specified dosages, and the second was sprayed at a 15-day interval. For calculating the FAW % infestation, the number of infected plants per plot was counted both before and three, seven, and ten days after the spray. Prior to statistical analysis, the infestation percentage data was converted into arc sin transformation in order to determine the significance of the differences between the various treatments. The yield of green fodder was measured in each net plot and translated to q/ha. Following the proper transformation, the data were statistically analyzed to produce a valid conclusion, in accordance with Steel and Torrie (1980).
Table 1: Treatment details.
Sr. No. | Treatments | Dose g/ml/L |
T1 | Emamectin benzoate 5 SG | 0.5 |
T2 | Chlorpyriphos 20 EC | 2 |
T3 | Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% WP (1×108 CFU/g) | 5 |
T4 | Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% WP (1×108 CFU/g) | 7.5 |
T5 | Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (1×108 CFU/g) | 5 |
T6 | Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (1×108 CFU/g) | 7.5 |
T7 | Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP (1×108 CFU/g) | 5 |
T8 | Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP (1×108 CFU/g) | 7.5 |
T9 | Azadirachtin 10,000 ppm | 2 |
T10 | Untreated Control | — |
Kharif-2019: The result of mean data Rahuri, Jhansi and Dharwad locations in Kharif 2019 revealed that the pre count (first and second spray) of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda was found non-significant before spray. At 3 DAS indicate that lowest percent infestation of Spodoptera frugiperda were recorded in the treatment of emamectin benzoate 5 SG @ 0.5 ml/lit of water (16.54 %) which was significantly superior over rest of the treatments. Next best treatment recorded was chlorpyriphos 20 EC (28.91%) @ 2 ml/lit of water followed by Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (34.52%) @ 5 g/L of water, Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (34.72%) WP@ 7.5 g/ lit, Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi1.15% WP (35.26%)@ 7.5 g/L of water, Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (35.74%) @ 7.5 g/L of water, Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (36.28%) WP@ 5 g/ lit and Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi1.15% WP (36.93%) @ 5 g/L of water in treated plots, respectively that differed significantly with other treatment but statistically at par with each other.
At 7 DAS, found that lowest percent infestation of Spodoptera frugiperda were recorded in the treatment of emamectin benzoate 5 SG (9.70 %) which was significantly superior over rest of the treatments. Next best treatment observed was chlorpyriphos 20 EC (22.55%) @ 2 ml/lit of water followed by Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP (20.95%)@ 7.5 g/L of water, Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP (21.30%) @ 5 g/L of water, Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (24.75%) @ 5 g/L of water, Beauveria bassiana1.15% WP (24.76%) @ 7.5 g/L of water, Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (26.29%) WP@ 7.5 g/lit and Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (26.68%) WP@ 5 g/ lit in treated plots, respectively that differed significantly with other treatment but statistically at par with each other.
At 10 DAS, it was recorded that lowest percent infestation of Spodoptera frugiperda were noted in the treatment of emamectin benzoate 5 SG (7.16 %) which was significantly superior over rest of the treatments. Next best treatment observed was Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP (17.22%)@ 7.5 g/L of water followed by Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP (17.24%) @ 5 g/L of water, chlorpyriphos 20 EC (19.76%) @ 2 ml/ lit of water, Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (20.90%) WP@ 7.5 g/10 lit, Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (21.18%) @ 5 g/L of water, Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (21.38%) @ 7.5 g/L of water and Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (22.58%) WP@ 5 g/10 lit in treated plots, respectively (Table 2).
Table 2: Pooled mean three locations of insecticides and biopesticides against fall army worm on maize. during Kharif 2019.
Sr No. | Treatments | Dose g/ml/L | % plant infestation of plant | GFY qt//ha | % increase over control | |||
Precount | 3 DAS | 7 DAS | 10 DAS | |||||
1. | Emamectin benzoate 5 SG | 0.5 | 44.23 (41.68) | 16.54 (24.00) | 9.70 (18.14) | 7.16 (15.52) | 434.92 | 94.03 |
2. | Chlorpyriphos 20 EC | 2 | 45.43 (42.38) | 28.91 (32.53) | 22.55 (28.35) | 19.76 (26.39) | 324.71 | 44.86 |
3. | Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% WP | 5 | 47.12 (43.35) | 36.28 (37.04) | 26.68 (31.10) | 22.58 (28.37) | 258.45 | 15.30 |
4. | Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% WP | 7.5 | 43.82 (41.45) | 34.72 (36.10) | 26.29 (30.84) | 20.90 (27.20) | 281.73 | 25.69 |
5. | Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP | 5 | 44.26 (41.71) | 34.52 (35.98) | 24.75 (29.84) | 21.18 (27.40) | 269.20 | 20.10 |
6. | Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP | 7.5 | 45.12 (42.20) | 35.74 (36.72) | 24.76 (29.84) | 21.38 (27.54) | 283.30 | 26.39 |
7. | Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP | 5 | 44.96 (42.11) | 36.93 (37.42) | 21.30 (27.48) | 17.24 (24.53) | 282.98 | 26.25 |
8. | Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP | 7.5 | 46.30 (42.88) | 35.26 (36.43) | 20.95 (27.24) | 17.22 (24.52) | 297.52 | 32.73 |
9. | Azadirachtin 10,000 ppm | 2 | 47.85 (43.77) | 38.30 (38.24) | 33.12 (35.13) | 31.80 (34.32) | 263.59 | 17.59 |
10. | Untreated Control | — | 47.65 (43.65) | 52.03 (46.16) | 55.15 (47.96) | 53.68 (47.11) | 224.15 | 0.00 |
SE | 0.88 | 2.13 | 2.32 | 2.60 | 5.74 | - | ||
CD @5% | NS | 6.33 | 6.99 | 7.73 | 15.96 | - | ||
CV% | 3.58 | 8.18 | 13.47 | 16.07 | 8.18 | - | ||
*Figures in the parenthesis are arc sin transformed values, DAS- Days After Spray, GFY- Green Fodder Yield
Kharif-2020: The mean result of Rahuri, Jhansi and Ludhiana locations in Kharif 2020 stated that the pre count (first and second spray) of fall army worm, Spodoptera frugiperda was found non-significant before spray. At 3 DAS, indicate that lowest percent infestation of Spodoptera frugiperda were recorded in the treatment of emamectin benzoate 5 SG @ 0.5 ml/ lit of water (13.10 %) which was significant and at par with chlorpyriphos 20 EC (21.82%)@ 2 ml/ lit of water. Next treatment was Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP (25.22%)@ 7.5 g/L of water followed by Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP (26.71%) @ 5 g/L of water, Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (26.84%) WP@ 7.5 g/ lit, Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (27.15%) @ 7.5 g/L of water, Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (27.28%) WP@ 5 g/ lit, Azadirachtin 10,000 ppm (28.24) and Beauveria bassiana1.15% WP (28.41%) @ 5 g/L of water intreated plots, respectively.
At 7 DAS, it was found that lowest percent infestation of Spodoptera frugiperda recorded in the treatment of emamectin benzoate 5 SG (9.52 %) which was significant and at par with chlorpyriphos 20 EC (18.57%) @ 2ml/ lit of water followed by Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi1.15% WP (18.99%)@ 7.5 g/L of water, Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP (20.37%) @ 5 g/L of water. Next treatment was Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (21.13%) WP@ 7.5 g/ lit, Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (22.62%) @ 7.5 g/L of water, Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (22.65%) WP@ 5 g/ lit, Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (24.23%) @ 5 g/L of water and Azadirachtin 10,000 ppm (26.28) in treated plots, respectively that differed significantly with other treatment but statistically at par with each other.
At 10 DAS, it was recorded that lowest percent infestation of Spodoptera frugiperda were noted in the treatment of emamectin benzoate 5 SG (6.72 %) which was significantly superior over rest of the treatments. Next best treatment observed was chlorpyriphos 20 EC (16.68%) @ 2 ml/lit of water which was at par with Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP (17.44%) @ 7.5 g/L of water followed by Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (18.28%) WP@ 7.5 g/lit, Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi1.15% WP (18.54%) @ 5 g/L of water, Beauveria bassiana1.15% WP (20.67%) @ 7.5 g/L of water, Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (21.52%) WP@ 5 g/ lit and Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (28.28%) @ 5 g/L of water in treated plots, respectively that differed significantly with other treatment but statistically at par with each other.
Kharif-2021: The mean result of Rahuri, Bhubanshwar and Ludhiana locations in Kharif 2021 stated that the pre count (first and second spray) of fall army worm, Spodoptera frugiperda was found non-significant before spray. At 3 DAS, indicate that lowest percent infestation of Spodoptera frugiperda were recorded in the treatment of emamectin benzoate 5 SG @ 0.5 ml/ lit of water (19.95 %) which was significant and at par with chlorpyriphos 20 EC (28.37%) @ 2 ml/ lit of water. Next treatment was Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP (31.27%)@ 7.5 g/L of water followed by Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (32.33%) WP@ 7.5 g/ lit, Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (33.51%) @ 7.5 g/L of water, Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP (35.56%) @ 5 g/L of water, Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (35.64%) WP@ 5 g/ lit, Azadirachtin 10,000 ppm (35.68) and Beauveria bassiana1.15% WP (35.94%) @ 5 g/L of water in treated plots, respectively.
At 7 DAS, it was found that lowest percent infestation of Spodoptera frugiperda recorded in the treatment of emamectin benzoate 5 SG (13.90 %) which was significantly superior over rest of the treatments. Next best treatment waschlorpyriphos 20 EC (22.61%) @ 2ml/ lit of water followed by Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP (23.39%)@ 7.5 g/L of water, Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (24.12%) WP@ 7.5 g/ lit, Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP (25.00%) @ 5 g/L of water, Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (26.72%) @ 7.5 g/L of water, Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (28.13%) @ 5 g/L of water, Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (28.18%) WP@ 5 g/ lit and Azadirachtin 10,000 ppm (33.73) in treated plots, respectively.
At 10 DAS, recorded that lowest percent infestation of Spodoptera frugiperda were noted in the treatment of emamectin benzoate 5 SG (6.01 %) which was significantly superior over rest of the treatments. Next best treatment observed was chlorpyriphos 20 EC (16.18%) @ 2 ml/lit of water which was at par with Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP (14.85%) @ 7.5 g/L of water followed by Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (16.23%) WP@ 7.5 g/lit, Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi1.15% WP (17.10%) @ 5 g/L of water, Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (17.99%) @ 7.5 g/L of water, Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (19.54%) WP@ 5 g/lit and Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (20.62%) @ 5 g/L of water in treated plots, respectively.
Pooled data (Kharif 2019, 2020 and 2021): The results of pooled data of Kharif 2019, 2020 and 2021 of all locations were revealed that the pre count (first and second spray) of fall army worm, Spodoptera frugiperda found non-significant before spray indicating uniformity of pest population in the experimental plot but after spray, it was found significantly differ in all the treatments over control. After three days of spray indicate that among all the treatments the lowest percent infestation of Spodoptera frugiperda were recorded in the treatment of emamectin benzoate 5 SG @ 5 ml/lit of water (16.53 %) which was significantly superior over rest of the treatments. Next best treatment found was chlorpyriphos 20 EC (26.36%) @ 2ml/lit of water. The treatment Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1 1.5% WP@ 7.5 g/lit (30.73%) followed by Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% WP @ 7.5 g/ 10 lit of water (31.30%), Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (32.13%) @ 75 g/10 lit of water, Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (32.96%) and Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP @ 5 g/lit (33.07%) in treated plots, respectively.
Seven days after spray it was found that lowest percent infestation of Spodoptera frugiperda recorded in the treatment of emamectin benzoate 5 SG (11.04 %) which was significantly superior over rest of the treatments. Next best treatment was Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP (21.11%) @ 7.5 g/L of water followed by chlorpyriphos 20 EC (21.24%) @ 2 ml/ lit of water, Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP (22.22%) @ 5 g/L of water, Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (23.85%) WP@ 7.5 g/ lit, Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (24.70 %) @ 7.5 g/L of water, Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP (25.70%) @ 5 g/L of water and Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ WP@ 5 g/ lit (25.84%) in treated plots, respectively that differed significantly with other treatment but statistically at par with each other. Among different treatments highest percent infestation was recorded in Azadirachtin 10,000 ppm (30.08%) followed by untreated control (50.74 %).
Ten days after spray it was observed that lowest percent infestation of Spodoptera frugiperda was noted in the treatment of emamectin benzoate 5 SG (6.63 %) which was significantly superior over rest of the treatments. Next best treatment observed was Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP (16.51%) @ 7.5 g/L of water which was at par with chlorpyriphos 20 EC (17.54%) @ 2 ml/lit of water followed by Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP (17.63%) @ 5 g/L of water. Thereafter the treatment Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (18.47%) WP@ 7.5 g/lit, Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP @ 5 g/L (21.42%), Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% @ (21.21%) WP@ 5 g/lit (Table 5).
The present results were in accordance with the findings of Chandan et al. (2023) who reported that the lowest larval population recorded in emamectin benzoate 5 SG (1.178) with highest yield 42.5 q/ha and cost benefit ratio (1:2.42) in maize. Bharadwaj et al. (2020) reported that emamectin benzoate 5 WG @0.002 per cent was effective in reducing the larval population of S. frugiperda (5.17 larvae/25 plants) during kharif 2019 in maize. Chandar and Tayde (2023) was reported that emmamectin benzoate 5 SG recorded the minimum larval population (2.24 /10 plants) during Kharif season 2021 and 2022 in maize. The present results agree with Sharanabasappa et al. (2020) where highest larval mortality of S. frugiperda was observed in treatment of emmamectin benzoate 5 SG in maize
In case of green forage yields, among the different treatments highest yield were recorded in emamectin benzoate 5SG (374.94 q/ha) which was significantly superior over rest of the treatments. Next best treatment observed was chlorpyriphos 20 EC (305.74 q/ha) which was at par with Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% WP @ 7.5 g/lit of water (277.96 q/ha). Thereafter, Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP@ 5 g/lit of water (275.95 q/ha) followed by Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP @ 7.5 g/lit of water (273.99 q/ha), Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% WP @ 5 g/lit of water (267.24 q/ha) and Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP @ 5 g/lit of water (260.40 q/ha) as compared to untreated control plot (224.16 q/ha). These findings are supported by Sangle et al. (2020); Suthar et al. (2020); Thumar et al. (2020) All the treatments were superior over control (Table 5). Mallapur et al. (2018) found that 62.50 to 66.46 per cent leaf damage and 58.91to 62.87 per cent population reduction of fall armyworm population at 15 days of N. rileyi spraying at vijaypur and uttar kannada district of Karnataka. The highest Green forage yield increased over control was recorded in emamectin benzoate 5 SG (67.26%) followed by chlorpyriphos 20 EC (36.40%), Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP @ 7.5g /lit (29.49), Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% WP @ 7.5g/lit (24.00), Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP @ 5g /lit (23.10), Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP @ 7.5g/lit (22.23), Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% WP@5g/lit (19.22), (Table 5).
The present study confirmed that the treatment by emamectin benzoate reduces per cent infestation of fall armyworm, which conformity with the result of Nashwa and Aziza (2023) found that spraying of emamectin benzoate 5SG reduced 72.62 per cent infestation and also reduction of residual toxicity. Satanarayana et al. (2010) who found that emamectin benzoate 0.00725 % was the most effective insecticide for reducing the larval population of Spodoptera litura. Naram et al. (2022) reported that emamectin benzoate 5% SG was found more effective in managing the population and damage in maize which also reflected on yield.
When cost benefit ratio was worked out, among the treatments studied (Table 6), the best and most economical treatment was T1 (1:1.55) followed by T2 (1:1.31), T8 (1:1.23), T7 (1:1.18), T6 (1:1.16), as compared to T10 (1:0.83). These findings are supported by Ahir et al. (2021) who reported that maximum incremental benefit cost ratio (1:1.87) was obtained from three spays of emamectin benzoate 5SG in maize. Tayde and Ramesh (2022) reported that emamectin benzoate was most economical treatment which recorded the benefit coat ratio of 1:1.74 in maize. Deshmukh et al. (2020) showed that higher efficacy with higher benefit cost ratio recorded by emamectin benzoate 5 SG against S. frugiperda in maize. Likwise, Metzler et al. (2017) reported that botanicals insecticides effective against fall armyworm and it is more cost efficient for small farmers. Sharma et al. (2018) also reported that safe and eco-friendly insecticide has potential to replace synthetic pesticides and provide benefit cost effective in maize agro-ecosystem.
Table 3: Pooled mean three locations of insecticides and biopesticides against fall army worm on maize during Kharif 2020.
Sr. No. | Treatments | Dose g/ml/L | % plant infestation of plant | GFY qt//ha | % increase over control | |||
Precount | 3 DAS | 7 DAS | 10 DAS | |||||
1. | Emamectin benzoate 5 SG | 0.5 | 34.22 (35.80) | 13.10 (21.22) | 9.52 (17.97) | 6.72 (15.03) | 334.36 | 53.43 |
2. | Chlorpyriphos 20 EC | 2 | 35.00 (36.27) | 21.82 (27.85) | 18.57 (25.53) | 16.68 (24.10) | 294.00 | 34.90 |
3. | Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% WP | 5 | 33.85 (35.58) | 27.28 (31.49) | 22.65 (28.42) | 21.52 (27.64) | 265.96 | 22.04 |
4. | Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% WP | 7.5 | 34.20 (35.79) | 26.84 (31.20) | 21.13 (27.37) | 18.28 (25.31) | 269.98 | 23.88 |
5. | Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP | 5 | 33.93 (35.62) | 28.41 (32.21) | 24.23 (29.49) | 22.45 (28.28) | 251.86 | 15.57 |
6. | Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP | 7.5 | 34.68 (36.08) | 27.15 (31.40) | 22.62 (28.40) | 20.67 (27.04) | 253.47 | 16.31 |
7. | Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP | 5 | 33.63 (35.45) | 26.71 (31.12) | 20.37 (26.83) | 18.54 (25.50) | 272.13 | 24.87 |
8. | Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP | 7.5 | 32.85 (34.97) | 25.22 (30.15) | 18.99 (25.83) | 17.44 (24.69) | 280.12 | 28.54 |
9. | Azadirachtin 10,000 ppm | 2 | 33.58 (35.42) | 28.24 (32.10) | 26.28 (30.84) | 33.62 (35.44) | 243.48 | 11.72 |
10. | Untreated Control | — | 34.20 (35.79) | 42.89 (40.91) | 48.06 (43.89) | 53.45 (46.98) | 217.93 | 0.00 |
SE | 2.42 | 2.77 | 3.02 | 3.02 | 14.14 | |||
CD @5% | 7.20 | 8.22 | 8.98 | 8.95 | 42.01 | |||
CV% | 13.82 | 17.08 | 18.92 | 8.92 | 9.49 | |||
*Figures in the parenthesis are arc sin transformed values, DAS- Days After Spray, GFY- Green Fodder Yield
Table 4: Pooled mean three locations of insecticides and biopesticides against fall army worm on maize during Kharif 2021.
Sr. No. | Treatments | Dose g/ml/L | % plant infestation of plant | GFY qt//ha | % increase over control | |||
Precount | 3 DAS | 7 DAS | 10 DAS | |||||
1. | Emamectin benzoate 5 SG | 0.5 | 45.42 (42.37) | 19.95 (26.53) | 13.90 (21.89) | 6.01 (14.19) | 355.53 | 54.31 |
2. | Chlorpyriphos 20 EC | 2 | 47.17 (43.38) | 28.37 (32.18) | 22.61 (28.39) | 16.18 (23.72) | 298.53 | 29.57 |
3. | Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% WP | 5 | 46.77 (43.15) | 35.64 (36.65) | 28.18 (32.06) | 19.54 (26.23) | 277.30 | 20.36 |
4. | Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% WP | 7.5 | 46.39 (42.93) | 32.33 (34.65) | 24.12 (29.41) | 16.23 (23.76) | 282.17 | 22.47 |
5. | Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP | 5 | 47.18 (43.38) | 35.94 (36.83) | 28.13 (32.03) | 20.62 (27.01) | 260.13 | 12.91 |
6. | Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP | 7.5 | 46.79 (43.16) | 33.51 (35.37) | 26.72 (31.13) | 17.99 (25.10) | 285.20 | 23.78 |
7. | Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP | 5 | 45.91 (42.66) | 35.56 (36.61) | 25.00 (30.00) | 17.10 (24.43) | 272.73 | 18.37 |
8. | Metarhizium (Nomuraea)rileyi 1.15% WP | 7.5 | 46.59 (43.04) | 31.70 (34.27) | 23.39 (28.92) | 14.85 (22.67) | 293.13 | 27.23 |
9. | Azadirachtin 10,000 ppm | 2 | 46.42 (42.95) | 35.68 (36.68) | 30.84 (33.73) | 26.92 (31.25) | 271.70 | 17.93 |
10. | Untreated Control | — | 45.63 (42.49) | 48.27 (44.01) | 48.99 (44.42) | 50.40 (45.23) | 230.40 | 0.00 |
SE | 0.53 | 1.92 | 2.01 | 2.26 | 14.59 | |||
CD @5% | NS | 5.70 | 5.98 | 6.71 | 43.35 | |||
CV% | 2.16 | 9.57 | 11.41 | 15.08 | 8.94 | |||
*Figures in the parenthesis are arc sin transformed values, DAS- Days After Spray, GFY- Green Fodder Yield
Table 5: Pooled mean three locations of insecticides and biopesticides against fall army worm on maize during (Kharif 2021, 2022 & 2023)
Sr. No. | Treatments | Dose g/ml/L | % plant infestation of plant | GFY qt//ha | % increase over control | |||
Precount | 3 DAS | 7 DAS | 10 DAS | |||||
1. | Emamectin benzoate 5 SG | 0.5 | 41.29 (39.98) | 16.53 (23.99) | 11.04 (19.41) | 6.63 (14.92) | 374.94 | 67.26 |
2. | Chlorpyriphos 20 EC | 2 | 42.54 (40.71) | 26.36 (30.89) | 21.24 (27.45) | 17.54 (24.76) | 305.74 | 36.40 |
3. | Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% WP | 5 | 42.58 (40.73) | 33.07 (35.10) | 25.84 (30.55) | 21.21 (27.42) | 267.24 | 19.22 |
4. | Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% WP | 7.5 | 41.47 (40.09) | 31.30 (34.02) | 23.85 (29.23) | 18.47 (25.45) | 277.96 | 24.00 |
5. | Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP | 5 | 41.79 (40.27) | 32.96 (35.03) | 25.70 (30.46) | 21.42 (27.57) | 260.40 | 16.17 |
6. | Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP | 7.5 | 42.20 (40.51) | 32.13 (34.53) | 24.70 (29.80) | 20.01 (26.58) | 273.99 | 22.23 |
7. | Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP | 5 | 41.50 (40.11) | 33.07 (35.10) | 22.22 (28.13) | 17.63 (24.82) | 275.95 | 23.10 |
8. | Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP | 7.5 | 41.91 (40.35) | 30.73 (33.66) | 21.11 (27.35) | 16.51 (23.97) | 290.26 | 29.49 |
9. | Azadirachtin 10,000 ppm | 2 | 42.62 (40.75) | 34.07 (35.71) | 30.08 (33.26) | 30.78 (33.70) | 259.59 | 15.80 |
10. | Untreated Control | — | 42.49 (40.68) | 47.73 (43.70) | 50.74 (45.42) | 52.51 (46.44) | 224.16 | 0.00 |
SE | 0.34 | 0.47 | 0.67 | 0.44 | 9.73 | |||
CD @5% | NS | 1.40 | 1.99 | 1.32 | 28.91 | |||
CV% | 1.48 | 7.40 | 8.85 | 9.79 | 6.00 | |||
*Figures in the parenthesis are arc sin transformed values, DAS- Days After Spray, GFY- Green Fodder Yield
Table 6: Cost benefit ratio of different pesticides against FAW of Maize.
SN | Treatments | Maize GFY q/ha | Additional yield over control q/ha | Gross monitory return Rs/ha | Cost of treatment Rs/ha | Net monitory return Rs/ha | Additional income over control Rs/ha | BC* Ratio | ICBR** |
1 | Emamectin benzoate 5 SG | 374.94 | 150.78 | 84361.5 | 54260 | 30102 | 29666 | 1:1.55 | 1:6.96 |
2 | Chlorpyriphos 20 EC | 305.74 | 81.58 | 68791.5 | 52542 | 16250 | 15814 | 1:1.31 | 1:6.22 |
3 | Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% WP | 267.24 | 43.08 | 60129 | 52656 | 7473 | 7037 | 1:1.14 | 1:2.65 |
4 | Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15% WP | 277.96 | 53.80 | 62541 | 53156 | 9385 | 8949 | 1:1.18 | 1:2.84 |
5 | Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP | 260.4 | 36.24 | 58590 | 52656 | 5934 | 5498 | 1:1.11 | 1:2.07 |
6 | Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP | 273.99 | 49.83 | 61647.75 | 53156 | 8492 | 8056 | 1:1.16 | 1:2.55 |
7 | Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP | 275.95 | 51.79 | 62088.75 | 52656 | 9433 | 8997 | 1:1.18 | 1:3.39 |
8 | Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi 1.15% WP | 290.26 | 66.10 | 65308.5 | 53156 | 12153 | 11717 | 1:1.23 | 1:3.71 |
9 | Azadirachtin 10,000 ppm | 259.59 | 35.43 | 58407.75 | 54354 | 4054 | 3618 | 1:1.07 | 1:0.83 |
10 | Untreated Control | 224.16 | 0.00 | 50436 | 50000 | 436 | -- | -- | -- |
GFY–Rs. 225/q | Azadiractin:10,000 ppm Rs. 1349/lit | No. of application = 2 |
Chlorpyriphos 20 EC- Rs. 443/lit | Metarhizium anisopliae Rs. 200/kg | Beauveria bassiana Rs. 200/kg |
Emamectin benzoate 5 SG- Rs. 521/100 g *B:C Ratio-Benefit Cost Ratio | Metarhizium rileyi- Rs. 200/kg **ICBR- Incremental Cost Benefit Ratio | Labour cost for one spray- Rs. 827/ ha/spray @ (Rs. 331 /labour/day) |
On the basis of results of current investigation, it can be concluded that for management of fall armyworm, S. frugiperda the treatment of emamectin benzoate 5 SG @ 5 ml/10 lit of water shown most effective in reducing plant damage by fall armyworm as well as highest return on investment per rupee.
Identification of effective sustainable management practices against fall armyworm in fodder as well grain maize.
Ahir, K. C., Mahla, M.K., Sharma, K., Babu, S. R. & Kumar, A. (2021). Bio-efficacy of insecticides against fall armyworm. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 91(12), 1796-1800.
Anonymous (2020). FAOSTAT Statistics; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy.
Chandan, K. P., Yadav, U. & Sarangi, D. (2023). Field Efficacy of Certain Insecticides against Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) on Maize (Zea mays L.) under Prayagraj Region of India. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change, 13(9), 1207-1215.
Chandar, A. S. & Tayde, A. R. (2023). Field efficacy of insecticides against Fall Army Worm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE, Smith) on Maize (Zea mays L). International Journal of Environment and Climate Change, 13(11), 3010-3020.
Bharadwaj, G. S., Mutkule, D. S., Thakre, B. A. & Jadhav, A. S. (2020). Bio-efficacy of different insecticides against fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) on Maize. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 9(5), 603-607.
Deshmukh, A. V., Sharanabasappa, Pavithr, A. H. B., Kalleshwaraswamy, C. M., Shivanna, B. K. & Maruth, M. S. (2020). Field Efficacy of Insecticides for Management of Invasive Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on Maize in India. Florida Entomological Society, 103(2), 221-227.
Johnson, S. J. (1987). Migration and the life history strategy of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda in the western hemisphere. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 8(4), 543-549.
Manjula, K., Saheb, Y. P., Sudheer, M. J. & Rao, A. R. (2019). Studies on biology, feeding habits and natural enemies of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, a new invasive pest in India. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud., 7(6), 1245-1250.
Mallapur, C. P., Naik, A. K., Hagari, S., Praveen, T., Patil, R. K., & Lingappa, S. (2018). Potentiality of Nomuraea rileyi (Farlow) Samson against the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) infesting maize. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 6(6), 1062-1067.
Nashwa, S. A. & Aziza, E. S. A. (2023). Effectiveness of Teflunenzuron, Emamectin benzoate, and Alf- cypermethrin on Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera), under Laboratory and field conditions. Egyptian Academic Journal of Biological Sciences, 16(1), 133-139.
Kumar, P., Mahla, M. K., Ameta, O. P. & Mordia, A. (2015). Seasonal incidence of insect pest’s fauna in maize. Indian Journal of Entomology, 29(4), 45-49.
Metzler, H. B. & Mora, J. (2017). Evaluation of botanical insecticides in controlling the population of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda present on corn crops (Zea mays) located in Santa Cruz, Guanacaste, iop conference series: Earth & Environmental Science, 215-216.
Naram, R., Durga Prasad N.V.V.S., Chiranjeevi C. and Srinivasa, R. V. (2022). Evaluation of Bio-rational Insecticides against Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Maize. Biological Forum – An International Journal, 14(1), 294-297.
Reddy, Y. Y. R. & Trivedi, S. (2008). Maize Production Technology. Academic Press, 0-192.
Sangle, S. V., Jayewar, N. E. & Kadam, D. R. (2020). Efficacy of insecticides on larval population of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda on maize. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 8(6), 1831-1834.
Satanarayana, N. V. V., Rao, G. R. & Rao, P. (2010). Incidence and management Spodoptera litura of (Fab.) on post rainy season groundnut. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences, 18(1), 22-25.
Sharanabasappa, S. D., Kalleshwaraswamy, C. M., Asokan, R., Mahadeva Swamy, H. M., Maruthi, M. S., Pavithra, H. B., Hegde, K., Navi, S., Prabhu, S. T. & Georg, G. (2018). First report of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J E Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), an alien invasive pest on maize in India. Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystem, 24(1), 23-29.
Sharanabasappa, Kalleshwaraswamy, C. M., Maruthi, M. S. & Pavithra, H. B. (2018). Biology of invasive fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda on maize. Indian Journal Entomology, 80(3), 540-543.
Sharma, G. S., Bhandari, S., Neupane, A. & Pathak, T. S. (2018). Bio-rational management of armyworm (Mythimna separata) (lepidoptera: noctuidae) in chitwan condition of Nepal. Journal of Insect Agriculture Animal Science, 35(2), 143-150.
Sharanabasappa, D., Pavithra, H. B., Kalleshwaraswamy, C. M., Shivanna, B. K., Maruthi, M. S., Mota-Sanchez, D. (2020). Field efficacy of insecticides for management of invasive fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smth) on maize in India. Florida Entomologist, 103(2), 221-227.
Steel, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H. (1980). Principles and procedures of statistics. Publ. McGraw Hill Book company, New York, 137.
Suthar, M. B., Zala, H. S., Varma, H. S., Lunagariya, M. V., Patel, M. B. & Patel, B. N. (2020). Bioefficacy of granular insecticides against fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) in maize. International Journal of Chemical Sciences, 8(4), 174-179.
Tayde, A. R. & Ramesh, M. (2022). Comparative efficacy of selected chemicals and biopesticides against fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) on Maize (Zea mays L.). International Journal of Plant and Soil Science, 34(23), 466-470.
Indexing