Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Effect of selected neonicotinoids on predatory coccinellids in Bt cotton ecosystem .


Affiliations
1 Department of Biology, Gandhigram Rural Institute, Gandhigram – 624302, Tamil Nadu, India ., India
2 Department of Biology, Gandhigram Rural Institute, Gandhigram – 624302, Tamil Nadu, India ., India
 

Field studies were conducted in two villages viz., Mambattu and Salai in Tamil Nadu to assess the toxicity of five neonicotinoids viz., imidacloprid 17.8 SL, acetamiprid 20 SP, thiacloprid 21.7 SC, thiamethoxam 25 WDG and clothianidin 50 WDG to coccinellid predators in Bt cotton. At 1, 3, 7 and 14 days after treatment, standard check monocrotophos recorded maximum reduction of 78.8, 83.5, 70.4 and 62.6% respectively. Among neonicotinoids, clothianidin was found to be comparatively more toxic to coccinellids, followed by thiamethoxam and thiacloprid. Acetamiprid was found to be safest among chemical treatments with population reduction of 45.6, 53.9, 36.5 and 24.7% respectively at 1, 3, 7 and 14 days after treatment followed by imidacloprid and thiacloprid. Two rounds of spray of neonicotinoids on Bt cotton had significant impact on the coccinellids, when compared with untreated control plots. However, monocrotophos recorded relatively lowest population of coccinellids compared to untreated control and neonicotinoids. With significant population built-up after 7 days after acetamiprid and imidacloprid sprays, the 2 neonicotinoids may be suitable candidates for inclusion in integrated pest management of sucking insect pests in major Bt cotton growing areas as these insecticides are comparatively less toxic to predators as compared to other neonicotinoids like thiacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin and non-selective insecticide like monocrotophos.

Keywords

Bt cotton, coccinellids, natural enemies, neonicotinoids .
User
Notifications

  • Awasthi NS, Barkhade UP, Patil SR, Lande GK. 2013.Comparative toxicity of some commonly used insecticides to cotton aphid and their safety to predatory coccinellids. Bioscan, 8(3): 1007-1010.
  • Bacci L, Picanco MC, Silva EM, Martins JC, Chediak M, Sena ME. 2009. Insecticide physiological selectivity to natural enemies of Plutella xylostella(L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) in Brassicae. Cien Agrotec Lavras, 33: 2045-2051. https://doi.org/10.1590/S141370542009000700058
  • Bass C, Denholm I, Williason MS,Nauen R. 2015. The global status of insect resistance to neonicotinoid insecticides. Pesti Biochem Physiol, 121: 78-87 https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2015.04.004 PMid:26047114
  • Bueno AF, Freitas S. 2004. Effect of the insecticides abamectin and lufenuron on eggs and larvae of Chrysoperla externa under laboratory conditions. BioControl, 49: 277-283. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BICO.0000025375.07428.0b
  • Dhawan AK, Sidhu AS, Simwat GS. 1988. Assessment of avoidable loss in cotton (Gossypium hirsustum and G.arboretum) due to sucking pests and bollworms. Ind J Agric Sci, 58(4): 290-292.
  • Fernandes FL, Bacci L, Fernandes MS. 2010. Impact and selectivity of insecticides to predators and parasitoids. Entomo Brasilis, 3(1): 01-10 https://doi.org/10.12741/ ebrasilis.v3i1.52
  • Gomez AK, Gomez AA. 1984. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. John Wiley and Sons. Inc., Singapore. 704 pp
  • Henderson C F, Tilton EW. 1955. Tests with acaricides against the brown wheat mite. J Eco Entomol, 48(2): 157-161. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/48.2.157
  • Hofs Jean-Luc, Michel Fok, Maurice Vaissayre. 2006. Impact of Bt cotton adoption on pesticide use by smallholders: A 2-year survey in Makhatini Flats (South Africa). Crop Protection, 25: 984-988 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cropro.2006.01.006
  • Kranthi KR. 2012. Bt Cotton Questions and Answers, Indian Society for cotton improvement, Mumbai. 70 pp
  • Mensah RK. 2002. Development of an integrated pest management programme for cotton. Part 2: Integration of a Lucerne/cotton interplant system, food supplement sprays with biological and synthetic insecticides. Int J Pest Management, 48(2): 95-105. https://doi. org/10.1080/09670870110095386 .
  • Mizell RF, Sconyers MC. 1992. Toxicity of imidacloprid to selected arthropod predators in the laboratory. Flo Entomol, 75: 277-280. https://doi.org/10.2307/3495632
  • Panse VG, Sukhtama PV. 1978. Statistical methods for agricultural workers. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, 238 pp.
  • Pimentel D. 1981. An overview of integrated pest management. NY: Department of Ecology and Systematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, Mimeo; 52 pp.
  • Satpute US, Sarnaik DN, Bhalerao PD. 1988. Assessment of avoidable field losses in cotton yield due to sucking pests and bollworms. Ind J of Plant Prot, 16(1): 37-39.
  • Schmutterer H. 1981. Ten years of neem research in the Federal Republic of Germany. pp. 21-51. In: Schmutterer H, Ascher KRS, Rembold H(Eds.). Natural Pesticides from the Neem tree (Azadirachta indica A. Juss). Germany: Eschborn.
  • Sparks TC. 2013. Insecticide discovery: An evaluation and analysis. Pesti Biochem Physiol, 107: 8-17 https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2013.05.012 PMid:25149229 .
  • The cotton corporation of India Ltd. 2022. National Cotton scenario. https://corcorp.org.in/National_Cotton.aspx
  • Vasant P Gandhi, Namboodiri, NV. 2009. Economics of Bt cotton Vis-à-vis Non-Bt cotton in India: A study across four major cotton growing states. Centre for management in agriculture, Indian Institute of management, Ahmedabad.
  • Vastrad AS. 2003. Neonicotinoids - current success and future outlook. Pestology, 27: 60-63.
  • Yamamoto L. 1996. Neonicotinoids mode of action and selectivity. Agrochem Japan, 68:14-15.

Abstract Views: 39

PDF Views: 10




  • Effect of selected neonicotinoids on predatory coccinellids in Bt cotton ecosystem .

Abstract Views: 39  |  PDF Views: 10

Authors

R. SRINIVASAN
Department of Biology, Gandhigram Rural Institute, Gandhigram – 624302, Tamil Nadu, India ., India
M. R. RAJAN
Department of Biology, Gandhigram Rural Institute, Gandhigram – 624302, Tamil Nadu, India ., India

Abstract


Field studies were conducted in two villages viz., Mambattu and Salai in Tamil Nadu to assess the toxicity of five neonicotinoids viz., imidacloprid 17.8 SL, acetamiprid 20 SP, thiacloprid 21.7 SC, thiamethoxam 25 WDG and clothianidin 50 WDG to coccinellid predators in Bt cotton. At 1, 3, 7 and 14 days after treatment, standard check monocrotophos recorded maximum reduction of 78.8, 83.5, 70.4 and 62.6% respectively. Among neonicotinoids, clothianidin was found to be comparatively more toxic to coccinellids, followed by thiamethoxam and thiacloprid. Acetamiprid was found to be safest among chemical treatments with population reduction of 45.6, 53.9, 36.5 and 24.7% respectively at 1, 3, 7 and 14 days after treatment followed by imidacloprid and thiacloprid. Two rounds of spray of neonicotinoids on Bt cotton had significant impact on the coccinellids, when compared with untreated control plots. However, monocrotophos recorded relatively lowest population of coccinellids compared to untreated control and neonicotinoids. With significant population built-up after 7 days after acetamiprid and imidacloprid sprays, the 2 neonicotinoids may be suitable candidates for inclusion in integrated pest management of sucking insect pests in major Bt cotton growing areas as these insecticides are comparatively less toxic to predators as compared to other neonicotinoids like thiacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin and non-selective insecticide like monocrotophos.

Keywords


Bt cotton, coccinellids, natural enemies, neonicotinoids .

References