Author:
WARGANTIWAR RAM K,KANG B K
Abstract
Laboratory bioassays were conducted during 2013-14 to observe the level of insecticide resistance against tomato fruit borer [Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)]. Populations collected from major tomato growing districts (Amritsar, ASR; Kapurthala, KPT; Patiala, PTA) of Punjab, India. Among different populations, Amritsar populations showed least susceptibility against synthetic pyrethroids, organophosphate as well as diamide followed by Patiala and Kapurthala. In the present study, fenvalerate was observed to be the least effective and have acquired high level of resistance (480-1270 fold) in H. armigera. As per the organophosphate and diamide groups of insecticides, Amritsar, Kapurthala and Patiala populations showed more susceptibility to profenofos and flubendiamide as compared to other insecticidestested. The susceptibility level against profenofos was almost same for all the tested populations. Flubendiamide was most effective insecticides against all populations. Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) showed significant relationship among fenvalerate and profenophos, deltamethrin and profenophos, flubendiamide and profenophos which suggest that resistance toprofenophos, deltamethrin and flubendiamide might be due to possible cross-resistance mechanisms. However, although therewas positive relationship among other insecticides, but none showed their statistical significance on log LC50 values of testedinsecticides on field population of H. armigera. A strong positive correlation between monooxygenase activity and pyrethroidresistance indicated that the elevated cytochrome P450 monooxygenase activity is associated with pyrethroid resistance indifferent strains of H. armigera.
Publisher
Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Directorate of Knowledge Management in Agriculture
Subject
Agronomy and Crop Science
Reference32 articles.
1. Abbott W S. 1925. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. Journal of Economic Entomology 18: 265–7.
2. Anonymous 1990. Proposed insecticide/acaricide susceptibility tests. IRAC method No 7. Bulletins of European Plant Protection Organization 20: 399–400.
3. Armes N J, Banerjee S K, DeSouza K R, Jadhav D R, King A B S, Kranthi K R, Reghupathy A, Surulivelu T and Vengopal Rao N. 1994. Insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armigera in India: recent developments. Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference Pest and Diseases, Bracknell (United Kingdom), pp. 437–2.
4. Armes N J, Jadhav D R, Bond G S, King A B S and Sundraramurthy V T. 1992. Insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armigera metabolic mechanisms mediating pyrethroids in south India. Pesticide Science 34: 355–4.
5. Armes N J, Jhadav D R and De Souza K R. 1996. A survey of insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armigera in the Indian sub-continent. Bulletin of Entomological Research 86: 499–4.