International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences (IJSRES), 1(7), pp. 138-143, 2013 Available online at http://www.ijsrpub.

com/ijsres ISSN: 2322-4983; 2013 IJSRPUB http://dx.doi.org/10.12983/ijsres-2013-p138-143

Full Length Research Paper Comparative Suitability of Soil and Foliar Applied Insecticides against the Aphid Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Aphididae: Hemiptera) In Canola Brassica napus L.
Muhammad Sarwar
Nuclear Institute of Agriculture (NIA), Tandojam-70060, Sindh, Pakistan; E-mail: drmsarwar64@yahoo.com
Received 12 April 2013; Accepted 06 May 2013

Abstract. Chemical control is an essential component of crop protection in modern agriculture. Although some natural and biological controls are in practice, the use of insecticides is still considered the primary strategy to control insect pests. This trial was designed to examine aphids control with Soil [Phorate 5G (Thimet) and Monomehypo 5G (Monosultap)] and foliar [Tracer 240 SC (Spinosad) and Steward 150 SC (Indoxacarb)] well-timed applied insecticides and their yield impacts due to varied aphid populations in canola Brassica napus L. Pest populations were estimated by whole plant aphid counts on 5 plants per replicate selected randomly. These data suggested that insecticides differed in performance against aphid as compared with control. The green peach aphid, Myzus persicae (Sulzer), was the most dominating pest species at the experimental site across whole season. Soil applied insecticide treatments provided an early season suppression of aphid, but not provided adequate protection for long enough in the season. Aphid control with foliar insecticides was significantly better than soil applications tested. They probably did not provide adequate protection for aphids especially under conditions when aphids continued migrating into the field. Spinosad was the most effective insecticide tested after exposure followed by Indoxacarb for causing maximum aphid mortality and crop yield, but statistical differences among these treatments were not significant. Thus, pesticides are still the predominant type of pest control tactic of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in crop ecosystem. Key words: Chemical control, Canola, Aphid, Myzus persicae, Pest.

1. INTRODUCION Among insect pests, the aphid, Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) is a common pest in canola growing areas of Pakistan. It sucks sap from plants and can be found massed on growing points or lower leaves, but mainly lightly scattered on the underneath of lower leaves. Aphids located on the underneath of leaves excrete honeydew, to which exuviae stick, which provide evidence for the presence of this pest. Due to aphids colony formation on the underside of leaves, the distinctive distortion of leaf results causing crinkling and blistering (Sarwar, 2013). For the reason that M. persicae is a sap-feeding insect pest, it causes direct injury by leaf curling and indirect damage primarily as vector of viruses transmission to various plant species which are main consequences of its infestation. Together, the adult and nymph aphids by sucking cell sap from the plant, cause injure to canola plant at vegetative, flowering and pod formation stages. Attacked leaves become curled, plants failed to develop pods, the immature pods when developed do not mature and unable to produce healthy seeds in case of heavy aphids infestation. Therefore, the attacked plants lose their vitality and their development is blocked (Sarwar et al., 2011). Aphids damage to canola by feeding, promoting honeydew formation and by transmitting

plant viruses. Fatalities due to aphids can be significant with losses of upto one third of the total crop yield potential recorded (Berlandier et al., 2010). The important agrochemicals are insecticides, which are used for prevention of crops from pests and their different application treatments include foliar spray, soil application and seed treatment. Different species of aphids are the primary contaminates of canola crop and currently most growers use pesticides to manage aphids. Some growers prefer to control aphids with foliar or soil applied insecticides. However, some times foliar treatments may be less reliable than soil applied treatments and could result in higher expenses or vice versa. Several new insecticides have been developed over the past few years with potential for controlling aphids in canola. Aphids management on canola has conventionally been based on manifold appliances of insecticides to crop foliage with sprayers. Within latest years, the barely valuable pesticides against aphids and available to the producers have been the neonicotinoid insecticides. The neonicotinoids have proven effective because they are readily absorbed into the plant, translocate within the plant and affect aphids located on the leaf bottoms (Nauen et al., 1998; Thomson, 2000). Resistance in aphids to the most commonly used groups of insecticides is well documented. Aphids reproduce asexually in cropping situations,

138

Sarwar Comparative Suitability of Soil and Foliar Applied Insecticides against the Aphid Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Aphididae: Hemiptera) In Canola Brassica napus L.

meaning that all the progeny of a resistant individual will be resistant as well and reliance on a limited number of chemical groups leads quickly to develop resistance (Owain et al., 2008). Sequentially to increase profit, canola growers in Pakistan and elsewhere are usually interested to obtain maximum yield production in various areas. To facilitate growers, it is imperative to test insecticides on local aphid populations prior to making large procure of pesticides. This study was undertaken to explore the use of soil and foliar applied insecticides for effective aphid management on canola. The intention of the study detailed herein was to ascertain the effectiveness of available pesticides in liquid, granules and powder forms belonging to different chemical classes against the green peach aphid on canola when applied into the soil or on foliage. 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS A green leaf canola Brassica napus L., was seeded direct into triple row beds at the Nuclear Institute of Agriculture (NIA), Tandojam, Sindh, Pakistan. Seeds were obtained from the same Institute and planted on first weak of November. Seed beds were 2.5 m2 in dimension, and bordered on each side and each end by 1 meter alleys. One-meter widespread border was also left in between the blocks as well as around the experimental field. After pre-irrigation, experimental field was prepared by ploughing with tractor. The experimental test was a randomized complete block design, with 3 replicates (three blocks) of uniform size. Plants were fertilized with Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium, and watered thrice during whole growing season. At the time of sowing as well as after sowing, the fertilizers were applied at the rate of 60 Kg N, 40 Kg P, and 40 Kg K per hectare. During the entire crop season, the weeds were removed from the surrounding areas and the study field repeatedly with manual operations. 2.1. Field trial with comparative efficacy of insecticides The present investigations trial was designed to examine aphid control with Soil [Thimet (Phorate 5G) and Monomehypo 5G (Monosultap)] and foliar [Tracer 240 SC (Spinosad) and Steward 150 SC (Indoxacarb)] well-timed applied insecticides and their yield impacts on crop due to varied aphid populations. All treatments were applied two times during the crop production season. Each treatment was replicated 3 times including non-treated control. Active ingredients (kg/ ha) and dose rates (kg/ ha or l/ ha) of Phorate, Monomehypo, Spinosad and Indoxacarb formulations used in this study were 2.5 & 7.5, 3.75 & 17.0, 0.125 & 0.25 and 0.030 & 0.09,

respectively. Spinosad and Indoxacarb belong to the classes Spinosyns and Oxadiazine of insecticide chemistry, respectively, relatively benign to most beneficial insects and are used solely to control certain insect pests. The product Monomehypo belongs to bio-pesticide group and the chemical group of Phorate is Organophosphate. All foliar treatments included the surfactant applications on crop, whereas, the soil treatments were applied evenly near the seedling lines subsequent to crop planting after on-setting of pest incidence. For the control of aphids, all foliar treatments were sprayed with the help of a knap sack sprayer and prior to spraying the sprayer was calibrated. The sprayer comprised with 3 hollow cone TXV-4 nozzles per row, one centered over the bed and two angled on each side of the bed for throwing drops. All treatments were applied at 15 days intervals during February and March when pest reached at economic injury level. 2.2. Experimental data collection The pesticides efficiency estimation methods used in the trial were assessments of pest density on crop and grain yield due to the insecticide applications made in each trial treatments. Exact pesticides assessment timing for aphids knockdown varied at each trial. All soil treatment trials were assessed for pest control at 7 days after their applications from randomly selected plants. Wile, the numbers of adult and immature aphids were counted 3-4 days after foliar application treatments. Aphid populations were estimated by whole plant aphid counts on randomly selected 5 plants/ replicate from each treatment. The procedure was repeated at bi-weekly intervals until the termination of the study period. The canola crop was harvested manually at full maturity stage and the yield for each treatment was determined in gm per 2.5 m2 area of a replicate. The data thus obtained were analyzed with ANOVA by using Statistix software version 8.1. The significant differences among treatment means were separated with least significant difference (LSD) at 5% level. The pest population and crop yield in various insecticide treatments were used as an indicator of pesticide efficacy such as lower populations of insect pest represented higher toxicity of test material resulting enhanced produce and vice versa. 3. RESULTS 3.1. Aphid incidence and mode of damage The green peach aphid, Myzus persicae (Sulzer), was the most dominating pest species appearing in midFebruary at the experimental site and their numbers at

139

International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences (IJSRES), 1(7), pp. 138-143, 2013

that time were very low (upto 1-5 aphids per plant). The aphid populations were also low until late in February and at that time very few aphids could be found on the crop. During March, aphids began to colonize maximum-ally, became very numerous and their numbers were very high across all treatments particularly in untreated crop (upto 198.2 aphids per plant). Because aphid populations continued to enlarge following the first pesticide application on first week of March, the insecticides were applied again on second week of March (15 days after the first application), thus triggering the first application of insecticides. Within the observation period, aphid was observed damaging crop by removing plant juices and contaminating leaves with honeydews (a sugar-rich substrate) and cast skins to promote the growth of sooty mold. The aphids constantly created their new progeny on the leaves, inflorescence and pods, but developed quicker on the inflorescence than on other parts of the plant. Thus, for optimum aphids infestation, the flowering and pod formation stages were the most favorable periods. 3.2. Comparative efficacy of insecticides One day before spraying, the numbers of aphids ranged from 5-7 per plant in all the treatments. Prior to insecticides applied, aphids were comparatively identical in occurrence all over in the trial blocks. After spraying, during the entire study time, all the insecticides treatments contained significantly fewer aphids and prevented the establishment of pest upto the period of harvesting than the untreated crop. Of the foliar and soil applications evaluated, the data suggested that insecticides differed in performance against aphids as compared with control. Soil applied

insecticide treatments provided an early season suppression of aphid, but not provided adequate protection for long enough in the season (102.7-115.3 aphids per plant). Both of the soil treatments were almost similar in efficacy, however, not differing statistically from one another. Of both the foliar materials tested, Monomehypo was the superior treatment and provided aphids control at a level of 102.7 per plant, and Phorate treatment contained 115.3 aphids per plant, which was less effective relative to Monomehypo (Table 1). Aphids control with foliar insecticides was significantly better than soil applications tested (44.58-56.67 aphids per plant). Among these insecticide treatments, Spinosad contained the fewest aphids (44.58 aphids per plant) closely followed by Indoxacarb (56.67 aphids per plant) that appeared slightly weaker (Table 1). Both of the foliar treatments were nearly similar in efficacy and not differing statistically. Of the foliar materials, both the treatments of Spinosad and Indoxacarb were superior insecticides than soil applications. Spinosad was the most effective insecticide tested followed by Indoxacarb for causing maximum aphid mortality and giving higher crop yield after exposure, but statistical differences among these were not significant. However, they probably did not provide adequate protection for aphid especially under conditions when aphids continued migrating into the field. Regardless of rate, each of the neonicotinoid seed treatments significantly reduced the number of aphids when compared to aphid population levels on non-treated crop. At the end of sampling period, the mean numbers of mature and immature aphids produced by their adults on non-treated plants were 198.2 per plant (Table 1).

Table 1: Statistical analysis on comparisons of Soil and Foliar applied insecticides and their yield impacts due to varied aphid populations. S. No. Insecticides used Aphids population Yield/ plot per plant (2.5 m2) (gm) 1. Foliar applied 2. Insecticides 3. Soil applied 4. Insecticides 5. Unprotected Control LSD value Spinosad 240 SC (Tracer) Indoxacarb 150 SC (Steward) Monomehypo 5G (Monosultap) Phorate 5G (Thimet) 44.58 c 56.67 c 102.7 b 115.3 b 198.2 a 36.70 501.7 a 456.7 a 320.0 b 266.7 b 200.0 c 73.31

Within column means followed by same letter do not differ significantly (LSD, P= 0.05).

Yield varied across various treatments and there was evidence of an effect of insecticides on yield at the study site (P< 0.5), which ranged from 320.0501.7 gm per 2.5 m2 per plot in treated plants than in the untreated control (266.7 gm per 2.5 m2) (Table 1). Each of the foliar applied insecticides significantly privileged the yield of canola than planted with soil applied insecticide treatments versus untreated control. It was estimated that the use of Spinosad

foliar insecticide treatment yielded greater produce (501.7 gm per 2.5 m2) than the Indoxacarb (456.7 gm per 2.5 m2). Canola planted with soil applied insecticide treatments Monomehypo and Phorate resulted in values of 320.0 and 266.7 gm yield per 2.5 m2, respectively. No significant differences were detected between the two foliar insecticide treatments and both soil treatments from each other, but differed significantly from non-treated plots.

140

Sarwar Comparative Suitability of Soil and Foliar Applied Insecticides against the Aphid Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Aphididae: Hemiptera) In Canola Brassica napus L.

4. DISCUSSIONS This research has created a self-determining dataset on effectiveness and impacts of specific chemicals on the aphid pest, and the utilization of the sprays and granules has facilitated the accurate and resourceful assessment of insecticides in the field situation. The soil applied treatments included were Phorate and Monomehypo, while, the foliar insecticides evaluated included Spinosad and Indoxacarb. On an average, significantly highest grain yield was obtained from plants treated with foliar insecticides. Similar findings were obtained with adults and immature aphids appearance throughout the study. No differences between the two liquid or soiled treatments for each other or between insecticide rates were detected. Based on visual symptoms, no phytotoxicity occurred on plants treated with any of chemicals nor did non treatment cause injury to canola in any trial. Data reported herein indicated that the neonicotinoid insecticides, in addition to the soil treatments infurrow applications also resulted in significantly lower aphid numbers than on plants in plots not receiving the applications. Tests also demonstrated that Spinosad and Indoxacarb effectively managed aphid populations. Data reported by McLeod et al., (2008) proved that each of the neonicotinoid treatments significantly reduced the number of aphids when compared to aphid population levels on non-treated crop. Foliar insecticides have an edge over the seed dresser or soil routed insecticide as these are employed when the aphid populations exceed thresholds (Felsot, 2001). Results by Hameed et al., (2012) revealed that Spinosad (Tracer 240 SC) was the best against target pest, with maximum mortality. Results by Sohail et al. (2004) revealed that Tracer (Spinosad) was the most effective treatment in restricting the pest infestation followed by Steward (Indoxacarb). Spinosad, a mixture of spinosyns derived from the naturally occurring soil actinomycete Saccharopolyspora spinosa Mertz and Yao (Sparks et al., 1998), however, has been classified as an environmentally and toxicologically reduced-risk insecticide and much less toxic to natural enemies (Cleveland et al., 2001). Other authors, conspicuously Van Steenwyk et al., (2005) have reported disparate observations on the efficacy of Spinosad and documented elimination of the aphid parasitoid Trixoys pallidus Haliday (no other natural enemies were reported) and increased numbers of walnut aphid Chromaphis juglandicola Kaltenbach following Spinosad treatment. From their study, Kalawate and Dethe (2012) found that Spinosad afforded moderate control of jassid, whitefly and aphid.

This study compared effectiveness of selected insecticides for managing aphids and the effective protection of foliage by foliar protectant supports previous studies utilized (Sarwar et al., 2007). In contrast to the numerous positive reactions of foliar applications of pesticides cited herein, there may also many instances of little benefit from soil chemicals. Despite its utility, soil applications often result in pest outbreaks (Rebek and Sadof, 2003). Foliar insecticide, provided slightly, but not always significantly, better protection throughout the season with a much smaller range in plant injury (Justin and Sadof, 2007). Foliar pesticides are the most efficient way to increase yield and plant health. The tests have shown that foliar chemicals can increase yields when compared to soil applications. This is because that certain soil conditions, such as cool temperatures and excess moisture, may render a pesticide unavailable to the plant roots. Foliar pesticides on the other hand are directly mobilized into plant leaf, which is the aim of pesticide applications resulting increase in the rate of photosynthesis in the leaves. Further, water soluble formulations commonly work superior for foliar applications as they are more easily absorbed by plant and thus especially available when compared to insoluble chemicals. This is in contrast to soil applied (solid) chemicals, which are applied as a powder or granules to the soil in dry form. This then, has to be dissolved into the soil moisture to make available to plant by passing through the roots. Tests, conducted under different environmental conditions at diverse locations, have reflected that when pesticides are foliar applied, more of those pesticides are consumed by the plant. But when a similar amount is applied to the soil, only few percent of it is utilized (Sarwar et al., 2007). Conversely, further investigations are needed in laboratory as well as field studies to determine the effects of large-scale field applications of tested chemicals. There are a number of aspects that the growers ought to consider while making a decision on the utilization of an insecticide treatment in their canola field. These comprise soil situation with regard to seed germination, quantity of plant residue, field record with regard to seedling insect pests, yield potential of the field and risk management tactics. Numerous factors can contribute to the current extensive curiosity and potentialities in the uses of foliar and soil applied pesticides. Foliar pesticides are applied to plant leaves, stems and branches, and they may act either as contact pesticide or systemic pesticide. Soil applied pesticides are applied to the soil, then taken up by roots and translocate inside the plant, and they need no mixing in soil and have minimal drift.

141

International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences (IJSRES), 1(7), pp. 138-143, 2013

5. CONCLUSION Summarizing the results, the control of aphids is imperative in canola in order to avoid yield loss and keep away from harvesting troubles caused by aphids honey dews and sooty moulds. Currently, aphid management on commercial canola crop primarily relies on sprays of insecticides due to severe incidence of aphid populations. The field trials made it obvious that the excellent activity of insecticides can be achieved on the common species of aphids attacking canola, especially when aphid densities are at economic injury level. In such areas, it is likely that the foliar insecticide applications for aphid management on crop are defensible. This method offers a useful alternative to the soil sprays and the manor can provide the producers with an effective alternative. Two foliar applications of Spinosad or Indoxacarb well-timed at 15 days interval beginning at the onset of aphid colonization can provide superior aphid control over the soil treating insecticides Phorate and Monomehypo, contradictory to that of untreated control. For canola growers to control aphids and the prevention of transmission of plant viruses, insecticides could be a valuable tool due to their excellent efficacy and many desirable attributes. REFERENCES Berlandier F, Severtson D, Mangano P (2010). Aphid management in canola crops. Department of Agriculture and Food, Note 440, July 2010. Cleveland CB, Mayes MA, Cryer SA (2001). An ecological risk assessment for spinosad use on cotton. Pest Manage. Sci., 58: 70-84. Felsot A (2001). Admiring risk reduction. Does imidacloprid have what it takes? Agrochem. and Environ. News, 186: 1-7. Hameed A, Shoaib F, Altaf H, Muhammad I, Mussurat H, Muhammad N, Asif S, Hammad H, Muhammad AS, Abdul LT (2012). Toxicological effects of neem (Azadirachta indica), Kanair (Nerium oleander) and spinosad (Tracer 240 SC) on the red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum) (Herbst.). African Journal of Agricultural Research, 7 (4): 555560. Justin MV, Sadof CS (2007). Efficacy of Soil and Foliar-applied Azadirachtin in Combination with and in Comparison to Soil-applied Imidacloprid and Foliar-applied Carbaryl Against Japanese Beetles on Roses. Hort. Technology, 17 (3): 316-321. Kalawate A, Dethe MD (2012). Bioefficacy study of biorational insecticide on brinjal. J. Biopest., 5 (1): 75-80.

McLeod P, Eaton S, Martin L (2008). Use of Neonicotinoid Insecticides Applied to Soil and Seed for Green Peach Aphid Management on Spinach. Plant Health Progress, 2008: 0208. Nauen R, Tietjen K, Wagner K, Elbert A (1998). Efficacy of plant metabolites of imidacloprid against Myzus persicae and Aphis gossypii (Homoptera: Aphididae). Pestic. Sci., 52: 5357. Owain REAE, Franzmann BB, Deborah CM (2008). Insecticide resistance and implications for future aphid management in Australian grains and pastures: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 48 (12): 1523-1530. Rebek EJ, Sadof CS (2003). Effects of pesticide applications on the euonymus scale (Homoptera: Diaspididae) and its parasitoid, Encarsia citrine (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). J. Econ. Entomol., 92: 446-452. Sarwar M (2013). Studies on Incidence of Insect Pests (Aphids) and Their Natural Enemies in Canola Brassica napus L. (Brassicaceae) Crop Ecosystem. International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 1 (5): 7884. Sarwar M, Ahmad N, Tofique M (2011). Impact of Soil Potassium on Population Buildup of Aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) and Crop Yield in Canola (Brassica napus L.) Field. Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 43 (1): 15-19. Sarwar M, Akbar A, Ahmad N, Khan GZ, Bux M, Tofique M (2007). Field Performance of Systemic Foliar and Granular Insecticides against Rice Stem Borers (Scirpophaga spp.) in Rice Crop. Proce. 26th Pakistan Conger. of Zoology, Multan, March 1-3, 27: 89-94. Sohail A, Khurram Z, Naeem-Ur-Rehman S (2004). Validation of Chemical Control of Gram Pod Borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) With New Insecticides. International Journal of Agriculture & Biology, 6 (6): 978-980. Sparks TC, Thompson GD, Kirst HA, Hertlein MB, Larson LL, Worden TV, Thibault ST (1998). Biological activity of the spinosyns, new fermentation derived insect control agents, on tobacco budworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae. J. Econ. Entomol., 91: 1277-1283. Thomson WT (2000). Agricultural Chemicals - Book I: Insecticides, Acaracides and Ovicides. Thomson Pub., Fresno, CA. 249 p. Van Steenwyk RA, Coates WW, Nomoto RM, Zolbrod SK (2005). Codling moth control in walnuts, 2004. Arthropod Manage. Tests, 30: D13.

142

Sarwar Comparative Suitability of Soil and Foliar Applied Insecticides against the Aphid Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Aphididae: Hemiptera) In Canola Brassica napus L. I, Dr. Muhammad Sarwar have more than 22 years research experience in the field of integrated insect pests management including opening a new avenue for culturing and applications of bio-control agents like Predatory mites, Coccinelid beetle and Chrysopid for pests control needs. The Investigator has been an active member of an IAEA project on IPM of Fruit Fly in Pakistans environment together with use of radiations as tactic of fruit fly control and production of their parasitoids. He has completed one year fellowship at Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, and awarded Post Doctorate certificate from China Postdoctoral Council, 2008, after fellowship. There the Investigator attained a vast experience of culturing predatory mites for their releasing in field and protected environment for insect and mite pests management. For outstanding and significant contributions on the work of innovative methodology with a particular focus on insect pests control strategy, awarded Gold Medal2010, from Zoological Society of Pakistan; Research Productivity Award-2011, by Pakistan Council for Science and Technology; and selected as approved Ph. D. Supervisor on Higher Education Commission of Pakistans panel. Participated in FAO/ IAEA training courses on Surveillance of Tephrited Fruit Flies in Support of Planning and Implementing Area Wide Integrated Pest Management program-2010, Thailand; Control of Aedes mosquitoes using SIT and other suppression techniques, Seibersdorf, Austria-2011; Basic Surveillance and Control for Dengue Vectors in Pakistan and Elsewhere, and 2nd Regional Dengue Workshop-2012, Pakistan, financed by IAEA under Technical Cooperation. Current responsibilities include research on topics relating to Mosquitoes surveillance, identification, biology; and experimentation towards integrated mosquitoes control to prevent mosquito-borne diseases, IPM of Fruit flies and IPM of Cotton insect pests.

143