Development of an organic integrated pest management (ipm) module against insect-pests of muskmelon in arid region of Rajasthan, India

_________________________________________________________ Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences http://www.jebas.org

KEYWORDS

Muskmelon

IPM

Melon aphid

Leaf eating caterpillar

Hadda beetle

Cucurbit fruit fly

Economics

ABSTRACT

Four different muskmelon production systems (two conventional, one conventional IPM, and one organic IPM) were compared in field experiments at the Central Institute for Arid Horticulture, Bikaner for two years. The organic IPM system proved to be the most effective and economical approach (B: C ratio 8.80:1) against melon aphid (Aphis gossypii), leaf eating caterpillar (Diaphania indica), hadda beetle (Epilachna vigintiopunctata) and cucurbit fruit fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae) in which the lowest incidence was recorded as compared to other modules. The organic IPM module-III comprised of growing resistant genotype (RM-50), spray of neem oil at 20 DAS, installation of pheromone trap (10/ hectare) at 42 DAS, spray of tumba fruit extract (TFE 5%) at 50 DAS and spray of spinosad 46 SC at 60 DAS was the most effective. The conventional I (farmer’s practices) was the second most effective system against major pests during both years. The benefit-cost ratio of the tested muskmelon production systems in the control of insect-pests decreased in the following order: module-III (B: C ratio 8.80:1)> module-I (B: C ratio 7.74:1)> module-IV (B: C ratio 6.60:1)> module-II (B: C ratio 3.56:1).

Shravan M Haldhar

, Choudhary B R

, Bhargava R

and Sharma S K

1

Scientist, Agril. Entomology, Central Institute for Arid Horticulture, ICAR, Bikaner, India. 2

Scientist, Vegetable Science, Central Institute for Arid Horticulture, ICAR, Bikaner, India. 3_{Principal Scientist, Central Institute for Arid Horticulture, ICAR, Bikaner, India.} 4_{Director, Central Institute for Arid Horticulture, ICAR, Bikaner, India.}

Received – December 21, 2013; Revision – January 26, 2014, Accepted – February 12, 2014 Available Online - February 28, 2014

DEVELOPMENT OF AN ORGANIC INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM)

MODULE AGAINST INSECT-PESTS OF MUSKMELON IN ARID REGION OF

RAJASTHAN, INDIA

E-mail: [email protected] (Shravan M Haldhar)

Peer review under responsibility of Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences.

* Corresponding author

Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences, February - 2014; Volume – 2(1)

Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences

http://www.jebas.org

ISSN No. 2320 – 8694

1 Introduction

Muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.) is an important horticultural crop in India and worldwide, and plays an important role in international trade. In 2011, 28.9 million tons of melons were produced worldwide, with China being the largest producer (17.1 million). India was ranked as the fifth largest producer worldwide, with 948, 869 tons produced in 43,932 ha (FAOSTAT, 2012). Many different melon cultivars have been developed; including smooth skinned, such as honeydew, crenshaw and casaba, as well as netted varieties, like cantaloupe, Persian melon and Santa Claus or Christmas melon. The marketable portion of the plant is the fruit. The pulp of both unripe and ripe melons can be used as dessert and salad (McCreight & Staub, 1993). Roasted seeds can be eaten or used for oil extraction. Cantaloupe melons are a good source of potassium, vitamin A and folate. Some varieties are cooked, or grown for their seeds, which are processed to produce melon oil.

Insect-pests are major constraints for increasing the production of muskmelon in India. The major incidence of insect-pests are melon aphid (Aphis gossypii Glover), leaf eating caterpillar (Diaphania indica Saunders), hadda beetle (Epilachna vigintiopunctata Fabricius), cucurbit fruit fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae Coquillett), surface grasshopper (Chrotogonus trachypterus Blanchard) and the flower beetles, (Anthicus crinitus Laferte and Anthrenus subclaviger Reitter). The cucurbit fruit fly is a serious pest of muskmelon in India and its’ outbreaks cause substantial crop losses to growers. The extent of losses varies between 30 to 100%, depending on the cultivar and the season. This pest has been a major limiting factor in obtaining good quality fruits and high yield (Doharey, 1983; Rabindranath & Pillai, 1986; Nath & Bhushan, 2006). The present investigation was carried out to evaluate an organic IPM module against insect-pests of muskmelon prevalent in the arid part of Rajasthan.

2 Materials and Methods

Field experiments were conducted at experimental farm of Central Institute for Arid Horticulture (CIAH), Bikaner (at 28°06’N latitude, 73°21’E longitude and altitude of 234.84m above sea level) to evaluate the effectiveness of an organic IPM module against muskmelon pest during the summers of 2011-12 and 2012-13. Seeds of muskmelon crop were soaked in water for 24 hours to soften their seed coat in laboratory. The crop was sown in February, 2012 and 2013 with four replications (blocks) for each treatment following a randomized block design. The area of each bed was 5 × 2 m and the plant to plant distance was maintained at 50 cm with drip irrigation system. All the recommended agronomic practices (e.g. weeding, fertilization, hoeing, etc.) were performed equally in each experimental bed. Four harvests of the fruits were done each growing season of muskmelon. Five plants were tagged in each treatment replicate and populations of melon aphid, leaf eating caterpillar, hadda beetle, and cucurbit fruit fly were recorded at fortnight interval from the

appearance of pests. The whole plant was taken for observation of hadda beetle and leaf eating caterpillar. Melon aphid populations were taken as density per leaf. For cucurbit fruit fly observation, ten fruits were randomly selected from each experimental bed at each harvest; a total of 40 fruits were taken from each harvest and brought to the laboratory for microscopic examination. The infested fruits were sorted and the percent fruit infestation was calculated. The yield of fruit per plant was taken from all the four picking stages of muskmelon crop. The avoidable loss and increase in fruit yield over control was calculated for each treatment by the following formula.

The formulae do not give the exact losses/ increase in yield because even in the treatment some damage occurs. However, this is considered to be the most feasible method for working out the percentage loss due to the insect pests in any treatment (Pradhan, 1964)

2.1 Details of models

MODULE-I: Farmer’s practices/Conventional I

a. Spray of Imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.5 ml per litre of water at 30 days after sowing (DAS) b. Two spray of Dimethoate 30 EC @ 2 ml per

litre of water at 45 DAS and 60 DAS

MODULE-II: Conventional IPM a. Resistant genotype (RM-50) b. Spray of NSKE 5% at 40 DAS

c. Spray of Dimethoate 30 EC @ 2 ml per litre of water at 60 DAS

MODULE-III: Organic IPM

a. Resistant genotype (RM-50)

b. Neem oil spray @ 5 ml per litre of water at 20 DAS

c. Installation of pheromone trap (10/ hectare) at 42 DAS

d. Spray of tumbafruit extract (TFE 5%) at 50 DAS

e. Spray of spinosad 46 SC @ 0.4 ml per litre of water at 60 DAS

MODULE-IV: Conventional II

a. Spray of Imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.5 ml per litre of water at 30 DAS

b. Spray of NSKE 5% at 40 DAS

c. Spray of Dimethoate 30 EC @ 2 ml per litre of water at 60 DAS

MODULE-V: No treatment/Control

2.2 Statistical analysis

Square root and angular transformations was used to achieve normality in the data before analysis (Steel et al., 1997), but untransformed means are presented in tables. Yield and melon aphid, leaf eating caterpillar, hadda beetle, and cucurbit fruit fly populations where compared among programs through one-way ANOVAs followed Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) tests for multiple comparisons at P = 0.05. All treatments were performed in SPSS 16 software (O’Connor, 2000).

3 Results and Discussion

A significant difference in melon aphid populations was observed under the different modules (P < 0.05). The pooled results showed that the organic IPM module-III registered had a significantly lower aphid population (11.36/ leaf) followed by module-I/ conventional I (17.80/ leaf). The highest aphid population was observed for the control (30.78/ leaf) (table 1 & figure 1). All four modules of pest control programs had significantly lower populations of leaf eating caterpillar than the control. As for the melon aphid populations, pooled results

showed that the organic IPM module-III program (7.91/ plant) followed by module-I (16.86/ plant) had the lowest leaf eating caterpillar populations whereas, the control exhibited highest (23.59/ plant). Effectiveness of organic amendments viz., neem cake and vermicompost besides neem derivatives against sucking pests has been documented by various workers (Singh & Singh, 1998; Giraddi & Smitha, 2004; Varghese & Giraddi, 2005), which lend support to the present findings. Singh et al. (2012) revealed that module (M1) proved be the most effective treatment against shoot and fruit borer, Earias vittella F., yellow vein mosaic virus vector, Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) and red spider mite, Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisd.) in which lowest incidence was recorded as compared to other IPM modules.

The module M1 comprised of hand picking and destruction of infested leaves, shoots and fruits, seed treatment with imidacloprid, application of indoxacarb, thiomethoxam, hexythiazox, deep summer ploughing and use of neem cake @ 250 kg/ha before sowing was the most effective. Nathan et al.

(2004) recorded that combination of neem seed kernel extract and Bacillus thuringiensis were effective in controlling the leaf folder C. medinalis. Spinosad 45 SC is a biological product from actinomycetes Saccharopolyspora spinosa was also effective in controlling rice leaf folder. Nalini et al. (2008), Karthikeyan et al. (2008) and Suresh et al. (2011) reported that application of spinosad 2.5 SC was effective against rice leaf folder.

Table 1 Incidence of aphid (A. gossypii) and leaf eating caterpillar (D. indica) in different management modules of muskmelon crop.

Treatments Aphid population per leaf Leaf eating caterpillar per plant

2012 2013 Pooled 2012 2013 Pooled

Module-I 17.45 (4.30)b* 18.15 (4.37)b 17.80 (4.33)b 16.65 (4.20)c 17.08 (4.25)c 16.86 (4.22)c

Module-II 25.95 (5.19)d 26.58 (5.25)d 26.26 (5.22)d 20.00 (4.58)d 20.80 (4.66)de 20.40 (4.62)de

Module-III 11.10 (3.47)a 11.63 (3.53)a 11.36 (3.50)a 7.60 (2.93)a 8.23 (3.03)a 7.91 (2.98)a

Module-IV 20.55 (4.64)c 21.30 (4.72)c 20.93 (4.68)c 11.75 (3.57)b 12.25 (3.63)b 12.00 (3.60)b

Control 30.50 (5.61)e _{31.05 (5.66)}e _{30.78 (5.63)}e _{23.15 (4.91)}e _{24.03 (5.00)}e _{23.59 (4.95)}e

*Values in parenthesis are square root-transformed. Value following different letter are significantly different using Tukey’s HSD test.

Table 2 Incidence of hadda beetle (E. vigintiopunctata) and cucurbit fruit fly (B. cucurbitae) in different management modules of muskmelon crop.

Treatments Hadda beetle per plant* Fruit fly (%)**

2012 2013 Pooled 2012 2013 Pooled

Module-I 6.33 (2.70)bc 6.90 (2.80)bc 6.61 (2.75)bc 28.80 (32.44)b 29.90 (33.11)b 29.35 (32.77)b

Module-II 8.80 (3.12)de 9.48 (3.22)de 9.14 (3.18)de 46.15 (42.77)d 46.99 (43.25)d 46.57 (43.01)d

Module-III 3.50 (2.11)a _{3.88 (2.20)}a _{3.69 (2.16)}a _{19.50 (26.19)}a _{20.33 (26.78)}a _{19.91 (26.19)}a

Module-IV 7.25 (2.87)cd 7.53 (2.91)c 7.39 (2.89)c 37.85 (37.92)c 38.55 (38.33)c 38.20 (38.13)c

Control 10.50 (3.39)e 11.00 (3.46)e 10.75 (3.43)e 61.00 (51.34)e 61.90 (51.89)e 61.45 (51.61)e

*Values in parenthesis are square root-transformed, **Values in parenthesis are angular-transformed. Value following different letter are significantly different using Tukey’s HSD test.

Table 3 Economics and assessment of losses caused by insect-pests in muskmelon in arid region of Rajasthan.

Treatments yield (q/ha)

Total avoidable losses (q/ha)

Percent avoidable

losses

Yield increase over control (q/ha)

Percent yield increase over control

Return of increased yield (Rs)**

Total cost of module expenditure

(Rs)***

B:C Ratio

Module-I 216.21 16.99 7.28 34.59 19.04 17295.00 2235.00 7.74

Module-II 194.81 38.39 16.26 13.19 7.26 6595.00 1855.00 3.56

Module-III 233.20* 0.00 0.00 51.58 28.39 25790.00 2930.00 8.80

Module-IV 209.20 24.00 10.29 27.58 15.18 13790.00 2088.00 6.60

Control 181.62 51.58 22.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

* Highest yield in the module plots, ** Cost of muskmelon fruit in summer season was 500 Rs per qt. *** It includes module and labour charges

Figure 1 Association of insect-pests and yield in different management modules of muskmelon crop.

Both hadda beetle (P < 0.05) and cucurbit fruit fly (P < 0.05) populations were significantly different among pest control programs. Organic IPM had the lowest infestation (3.69/ plant) followed by module-I (6.61/ plant) and at par with module-IV (7.39/ plant). The module-II was found to be less effective against hadda beetle as it recorded 9.14 per plant population but it still provided some control in relation to no treatment (control) (10.75/ plant) (table 2 and figure 1). Pooled results showed significant differences in cucurbit fruit fly populations between different pest control programs (P < 0.05)

was found for the organic IPM module-III (19.91 %) followed by module-I (29.35 %). The module-II (46.57 %) was found to be less effective but provided some pest control in relation to no treatment (control) (61.45 %). Thus from the results, it can be inferred that organic IPM module-III was effective to control the fruit fly infestation. A Citrullus plant is reported to possess various pesticidal and medicinal properties (Nmila et al., 2000). Dry aqueous extract of C. colocynthis fruit has been used in Western Europe in pest control and as an insect repellent, placed between clothes or on carpets to repel insects

(Smith & Secoy 1981). Cucurbitacins, bitter triterpenes common to all Cucurbitaceae, are thought to be potent feeding deterrents for all insects not adapted to exploiting cucurbits (Tallamy et al., 1997). Different soil amendments like neem cake and vermicompost (either in combination with neem derivatives or alone) tried against chilli fruit borer has given good results (Mallikarjun Rao et al., 1998; Giraddi et al., 2003). The higher efficacy of organic methods (amendments

viz., neem cake and vermicompost besides neem derivatives) than conventional methods against sucking pests has been documented in several studies (Singh & Singh, 1998; Giraddi & Smitha, 2004; Varghese & Giraddi, 2005), which lend support to the present findings. Singh et al. (2012) revealed that module (M1) proved be the most effective treatment against shoot and fruit borer, Earias vittella F., yellow vein mosaic virus vector, Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) and red spider mite, Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisd.) in which lowest incidence was recorded as compared to other IPM modules. The module M1 comprised of hand picking and destruction of infested leaves, shoots and fruits, seed treatment with imidacloprid, application of indoxacarb, thiomethoxam, hexythiazox, deep summer ploughing and use of neem cake @ 250 kg/ha before sowing was the most effective. Nathan et al.

(2004) recorded that combination of neem seed kernel extract and Bacillus thuringiensis were effective in controlling the leaf folder C. medinalis. Spinosad 45 SC is a biological product from actinomycetes Saccharopolyspora spinosa was also effective in controlling rice leaf folder. Nalini et al. (2008), Karthikeyan et al. (2008) and Suresh et al. (2011) reported that application of spinosad 2.5 SC was effective against rice leaf folder.

The marketable yield of muskmelon fruits differed significantly under different modules during both the years as well as pooled results (P < 0.05) (table 3 and figure 1). The fresh fruit yield of muskmelon observed in the different programs decreased in the following order: organic IPM module-III (233.20 q/ha), module-I (216.21 q/ha), module-IV (209.20 q/ha), module-II (194.81 q/ha), and control (181.62 q/ha) in pooled results. The same trend was observed during both the years. It can be inferred from the results that organic IPM module-III was highly effective and gave higher yield of marketable muskmelon fruits.

The higher Benefit-Cost Ratio was obtained in the organic IPM module-III (8.80:1) followed by module-I (7.74:1), and lowest BCR was obtained in module-II (3.56:1). According to Gundannavar et al. (2007) a significant higher yield (5.13 q/ha) was recorded in module-I which was at par with module-II (5.04) and module-III (4.91). However, least yield (4.29 q/ha) was registered in module IV for controlling insect pests of chilli. Praveen & Dhandapani (2001) recorded cost benefit ratio of 1:2.60 when C. carnea+Econeem was applied on okra against major insect pests. Das et al. (2001) recorded the highest cost benefit ratio from application of acephate (1:58) followed by imidacloprid (1:4.63) in okra. Shukla et al. (1996) found fenvalerate highly cost effective with a cost: benefit ratio of 1:10.3. Singh & Kumar (2003) found neem products

effective against jassid on okra and on the basis of cost: benefit ratio, neem seed kernel extract (3%) ranked first (1:10.7) followed by endosulfan (1:10.1). In summary, the reduction of insect- pests and increased yield of muskmelon crop could be due to the organic IPM module-III having growing resistant genotype (RM-50), spray of neem oil at 20 DAS, installation of pheromone trap (10/ hectare) at 42 DAS, spray of tumba fruit extract (TFE 5%) at 50 DAS and spray of spinosad 46 SC at 60 DAS. In future the organic IPM module-III will be economic and therefore, can be used to reduction of insect- pests, environmental safety and increased yield of muskmelon.

References

Das SN, Subhraj R, Chatterjee ML, Ray S (2001) Bioefficacy, yield benefit and cost effectivety of some new molecules against okra fruit borer, Earias vittella (F) (Noctidae: Lepidoptera). Journal of Interacad 5: 346-351.

Doharey KL (1983) Bionomics of fruit flies (Dacus spp.) on some fruits. Indian Journal of Entomology 45: 406-413.

FAOSTAT (2012). www.

http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx.

Giraddi RS, Smitha M S, Channappagoudar BB (2003) Organic amendments for the management of chilli (cv. Byadagi kaddi) insects-pests and their influence on crop vigour. Paper presented at the National Seminar on Perspective in Spices, Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Goa, 27-29 November, 2003.

Giraddi RS, Smitha MS (2004) Organic way of controlling yellow mite in chillies. Spice India 17: 19-21.

Gundannavar KP, Giraddi RS, Kulkarni K A, Awaknavar JS (2007) Development of integrated pest management modules for chilli pests. Karnataka Journal of Agriculture Science 20 : 757-760.

Karthikeyan K, Purushothaman, S M, Smitha R (2008) Effect of spinosad against major insect pests and natural enemies in rice ecosystem. Journal of Biological Control 22 : 315-320.

Mallikarjuna Rao N, Muralidhara Rao G, Tirumalarao K (1998) Efficacy of neem products and their combinations against chilli pod borers. Andhra Agricultural Journal 45: 179-181.

McCreight JD, Staub J (1993) Report of the cucurbit working group. USDA-ARC, Washington, DC, USA.

Nalini R, Shanthi M, Rajavel D S, Murali Baskaran RK (2008) Bio-efficacy of new insecticide molecules on rice leaf folder

Marasmia exigua (Butler). Pestology 32 : 13-15.

Nathan S S, Chung PG, Murugan K (2004) Effect of botanicals and bacterial toxin on the gut enzyme of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis. Phytoparasitica 32: 433-443.

Nmila R, Gross R, Rchid H, Roye M, Manteghetti M, Petit P, Tijane M, Ribes G, Sauvaire Y (2000) Insulinotropic effect of

Citrullus colocynthis fruit extracts. Planta Medica 66:418–423.

O’Connor BP (2000) SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation and Computer 32: 396–402.

Pradhan S (1964) Assessment of losses caused by insect pests of crop and estimation of insect population. Entomology in India, New Delhi, pp. 17-58.

Praveen PM, Dhandapani N (2001) Ecofriendly management of major pests of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench). Journal of Vegetable Crop Production 7: 3-12.

Rabindranath K, Pillai K S (1986) Control of fruit fly of bitter gourd using synthetic pyrethroids. Entomon 11: 269-272.

Shukla A, Pathak SC, Agrawal RK (1996) Efficacy economics of some insecticides and plant products against the infestation of okra shoot and fruit borer, Earias vittella (Fab.). Crop Research 12: 367-373.

Singh AK and Kumar M (2003) Efficacy and economics of neem based products against cotton jassid, Amrasca biguttulla

Ishida in okra. Crop Research 26: 271-274.

Singh S, Singh RP (1998) Neem (Azadirachta indica) seed kernel extracts and Azadirachtin as oviposition deterrents against the melon fly (B. cucurbitae) and oriental fruit fly (B. dorsalis). Phytoparasitica 26: 1-7.

Singh SS, Rai Mayank K, Dwivedi SK, Kumar Prabhat (2012) Validation of IPM modules against major pests of okra in Dehradun (Uttarakhand). Indian Journal of Entomology 74: 375-378.

Smith AE, Secoy DM (1981) Plants used for agriculture pest control in Western Europe before 1950. Chemistry and Industry 3:12-17.

Steel RGD, Torrie JH, Dickey DA (1997) Analysis of variance II: multiway classifications. In: Steel RGD, Torrie JH, Dickey DA, (Ed), Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach (third ed.), WCB/McGraw-Hill, USA,pp 204–252.

Suresh DK, Hegde M, Nayak GV, Vastrad AS, Hugar PS, Basavanagoud K (2011) Evaluation of insecticides and biorational against yellow stem borer and leaf folder in rice crop. Karnataka Journal of Agriculture Science 24: 244-246.

Tallamy DW, Stull G, Thresman N P, Gorski PM, Mason TE (1997) Cucurbitacins as feeding and oviposition deterrents to insects. Environmental Entomology 26: 678–783.

Varghese TS, Giraddi RS (2005) Integration of neem cake in the plant protection schedule for thrips and mite management in chilli (cv. Byadagi). Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Science 18: 154-156.