Research article · 2024 · Full text
International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry ResearchManagement of diamondback moth Plutella xylostella (Linn.) through microbial pesticides in cabbage crop
Volume 8(2) · Pages 601–605 · DOI: 10.33545/26174693.2024.v8.i2h.639 ↗
Research areasInsect Pest Control StrategiesAgricultural Practices and Plant GeneticsAgricultural pest management studies
Abstract
Author-writtenDuring 2015-16 and 2016-17, studies on control of diamondback moth using microbial pesticides were conducted at College of Agriculture, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.). Based on the summary evaluation of microbial pesticide treatments against SH infestation, the best microbial pesticide for SH management was found to be Bacillus thuringiensis (2.53 larvae/plant), followed by Beauveria bassiana (3.23 larvae/plant). The efficacy of microbial pesticide treatments was evaluated based on the cumulative percentage reduction over the control of Bacillus thuringiensis (56.67%) > Beauveria bassiana (44.69%) > Metarhizium anisopliae (39.56%) > Verticillium lecanii (29.96%). The effect of Bacillus thuringiensis (Kurstaki) treatment (17.50 kg/plot) on yield was found better than other treatments followed by Beauveria bassiana > Metarhizium anisopliae > Verticillium lecanii with 14.50 > 14.13 > 11.25 kg/plot, in this order.
Summary
Source-checkedPlain-language reading of the full paper, prepared with AI and checked against the text. Each point links to the authors' own words.
Why it matters
- Cabbage is a significant temperate cruciferous crop grown globally in many different climates. View evidence ↗
- The diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) is recognized as the most destructive pest for Brassicaceae crops worldwide. View evidence ↗
- Synthetic pesticides can cause environmental hazards, harm non-target organisms, and lead to the development of pest resistance. View evidence ↗
The question
- The study aimed to evaluate how effective different microbial pesticides are at controlling diamondback moth populations in cabbage. View evidence ↗
What they did
- Field experiments were carried out at Indira Gandhi Agricultural University in Raipur during the rabi seasons of 2015-16 and 2016-17. View evidence ↗
- The treatments tested included Beauveria bassiana (2500 g), Metarhizium anisopliae (2500 g), Bacillus thuringiensis Kurstaki (1000 ml), Verticillium lecanii (2500 g), and an untreated control. View evidence ↗
What they found
- After the first spray, Bacillus thuringiensis was the most effective at reducing larval population (2.53 larvae/plant), followed by B. bassiana, M. anisopliae, and V. lecanii. View evidence ↗
- Following the second spray, Bacillus thuringiensis remained the most effective (3.03 larvae/plant), with the other pesticides following the same order of efficacy. View evidence ↗
- After the third spray, Bacillus thuringiensis showed the lowest larval count (2.53 larvae/plant), maintaining its position as the most effective treatment. View evidence ↗
- Based on cumulative percentage reduction over the control, Bacillus thuringiensis was most effective (56.67%), followed by B. bassiana (44.69%), M. anisopliae (39.56%), and V. lecanii (29.96%). View evidence ↗
- Bacillus thuringiensis (Kurstaki) produced the highest cabbage yield (17.50 kg/plot or 138.89 q/ha), while Verticillium lecanii produced the lowest among the microbial treatments (11.25 kg/plot or 89.28 q/ha). View evidence ↗
What it means
- The authors conclude that microbial pesticides are a promising, sustainable alternative for managing diamondback moths, providing effective control and improving yields safely. View evidence ↗
- The authors state that more research is needed to optimize the methods used to apply these pesticides. View evidence ↗
Visual summary
2 visualsIllustrations explain the paper; charts are replotted from the paper's own table values.
Experimental Setup
AI-generated conceptual illustration (Cabbage plants and diamondback moth larvae). It explains the idea and does not show study data.
View source evidence ↗
Total yield (kg/plot): Beauveria bassiana (108... vs Metarhizium anisopliae... vs Bacillus thuringiensis... vs Verticillium lecanii... vs Control
Replotted from Table 05 (page 4) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.
View source evidence ↗Figures & tables
From the original paper
Table 1
Figure 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 05Introduction
Among vegetables, cruciferous vegetables are important winter crops consisting of cabbage, cauliflower, mustard, broccoli and radish. cabbage, Brassica oleracea var. capitata L. is a major temperate cruciferous crop widely cultivated in various climates around the world. Globally, India ranks second in cabbage production after China. Since it is mostly grown in large areas, there is likely to be a higher rate of pest infestation, which hinders its overall production and consumption. The diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.), is considered the most destructive pest of Brassicaceae not only in Brazil but also in several other regions of the world (Talekar & Shelton 1993) [5] . However, the continuous use of synthetic pesticides in the control of agricultural pests often leads to various negative effects, such as the development of pest resistance, adverse effect on non-target organisms, and hazardous effect on the environment. These disadvantages have led to alternative approaches to control cruciferous pests that are cost-effective, biodegradable, with low toxicity to non-target organisms and environmentally friendly. However, long-term and excessive use of synthetic pesticides has led to several side effects such as development of pest resistance, adverse effect on non-target organisms, and hazardous effects on the environment. All these problems threaten the sustainability of the ecosystem. As the population of resistant pests and harmful effects on the environment increases, it requires continuous support to find alternative control measures to reduce their spread. One promising approach is to incorporate the use of biological resources, such as microbial pesticides, into the pest management system, resulting in less negative impacts on the ecosystem. (Mayanglambam et al., 2021) [1] . Several entomopathogens (viruses, bacteria, fungi and nematodes) offer effective means of pest control (Steinhaus, 1949) [4] (Wraight et al., 2001) [6] . In addition, microbial control agents (MCAs) are safe for the environment, beneficial insects, applicators, and can be applied just before harvest, and are often compatible with other control agents and produce little or no residue (Pearson and Callaway, 2005) [2] . population at different intervals. Total three sprays of selective insecticides were applied during both the years. The larval population was recorded from randomly selected five plants from each plot, one day before application of insecticides as pre-treatment observation and after three, seven and fourteen days of spray as post treatment observations. Cabbage head yield was also recorded from each plot separately. Beauveria bassiana (10 8 cfu /g) 2500 g 2.
Metarhizium anisopliae (10 8 cfu/g) 2500g 3.
Bacillus thuringiensis (Kurstaki) (17600 IU/mg) 1000 ml 4.
Verticillium lecanii (10 8 cfu/g) 2500 g 5.
Results and Discussion
Total three sprays were applied during both the years to assess the efficacy of microbial pesticides against diamondback moth population through field experiment. When analyzing the data after grouping, the trend in treatment superiority did not deviate from year to year. An order of magnitude reduction in the number of larvae by the third spray was noted with Bacillus thuringiensis among other microbial pesticides. These findings are confirmed by the work of Rani and Jandial (2009) [3] , who investigated the biological effectiveness of ecological pesticides, see
First injection
First injection
Cabbage yield in the rabies season, 2015-16 and 2016-17 (combined)
The data recorded on the yield during the Rabi period in both the years were collected to better assess the effectiveness of different treatments against the untreated control and shown in Table No. 05. The collected yield data presented in the table clearly showed that the maximum (17.50 kg/plot / 138.89 q/ha) and minimum (11.25 kg/plot / 89.28 q/ha) yield harvested from plots treated with Bacillus thuringiensis (Kurstaki) and Verticillium lecanii, respectively. This data also showed that the effect of Bacillus thuringiensis (Kurstaki) (17.50 kg/plot / 138.89 q/ha) on yield was found better than other treatments followed by Beauveria bassiana > Metarhizium anisopliae > Verticillium lecanii with 14.50 > 14.13 > 11.25 kg/plot / 115.07 > 112.14 > 89.28 q/ha,
Figures and tables from the paper
| S. No. | Treatment | Dose g/ml/ha |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Beauveria bassiana (108cfu /g) | 2500 g |
| 2. | Metarhizium anisopliae (108cfu/g) | 2500g |
| 3. | Bacillus thuringiensis (Kurstaki) (17600 IU/mg) | 1000 ml |
| 4. | Verticillium lecanii (108cfu/g) | 2500 g |
| 5. | Control | - |
Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.
View original table image
| Treatment | — | *Mean larval population of P. xylostella per plant | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | Mean of Pooled values | Percent reduction over control |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Days after treatment | ||||||||||||
| 3 | Pooled value | 7 | Pooled value | 14 | Pooled value | |||||||
| 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | |||||||
| T1 | Beauveria bassiana (108 cfu /g) | 3.25 (2.05) | 3.20 (2.04) | 3.23 (2.05) | 1.95 (1.70) | 2.05 (1.73) | 2.00 (1.72) | 3.00 (1.99) | 3.10 (2.02) | 3.05 (2.01) | 2.76 (1.92) | 40.00 |
| T2 | Metarhizium anisopliae (108cfu/g) | 3.85 (2.20) | 3.80 (2.19) | 3.83 (2.19) | 3.30 (2.07) | 3.35 (2.08) | 3.33 (2.07) | 3.40 (2.09) | 3.50 (2.11) | 3.45 (2.10) | 3.54 (2.12) | 23.04 |
| T3 | Bacillus thuringiensis (Kurstaki) (17600 IU/mg) | 3.30 (2.06) | 3.25 (2.05) | 3.28 (2.06) | 1.75 (1.65) | 1.80 (1.66) | 1.78 (1.66) | 2.85 (1.96) | 2.20 (1.78) | 2.53 (1.87) | 2.53 (1.86) | 45.00 |
| T4 | Verticillium lecanii (108cfu/g) | 3.90 (2.21) | 3.85 (2.20) | 3.88 (2.20) | 3.35 (2.08) | 3.45 (2.10) | 3.40 (2.09) | 3.60 (2.14) | 3.25 (2.06) | 3.43 (2.10) | 3.57 (2.13) | 22.39 |
| T5 | Control | 4.65 (2.37) | 4.50 (2.34) | 4.58 (2.36) | 4.70 (2.38) | 4.75 (2.39) | 4.73 (2.39) | 4.60 (2.36) | 4.40 (2.32) | 4.50 (2.34) | 4.60 (2.36) | |
| S.Em ± | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.03 | |||
| CD at 5% | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.22 | 0.25 | 0.23 | 0.08 | 0.21 | 0.11 |
Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.
View original table image
| Treatment | — | *Mean larval population of P. xylostella per plant | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | Mean of Pooled values | Percent reduction over control |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Days after treatment | ||||||||||||
| 3 | Pooled value | 7 | Pooled value | 14 | Pooled value | |||||||
| 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | |||||||
| T1 | Beauveria bassiana (108 cfu /g) | 3.75 (2.17) | 3.95 (2.22) | 3.85 (2.20) | 3.00 (1.99) | 3.75 (2.17) | 3.38 (2.09) | 3.25 (2.05) | 3.10 (2.02) | 3.18 (2.04) | 3.47 (2.11) | 32.75 |
| T2 | Metarhizium anisopliae (108 cfu/g) | 4.00 (2.23) | 4.10 (2.25) | 4.05 (2.24) | 3.40 (2.09) | 3.85 (2.20) | 3.63 (2.15) | 3.45 (2.10) | 3.25 (2.05) | 3.35 (2.08) | 3.68 (2.15) | 28.68 |
| T3 | Bacillus thuringiensis (Kurstaki) (17600 IU/mg) | 3.45 (2.10) | 3.30 (2.07) | 3.38 (2.09) | 2.80 (1.94) | 2.75 (1.93) | 2.78 (1.94) | 3.05 (2.01) | 2.80 (1.94) | 2.93 (1.98) | 3.03 (2.00) | 41.27 |
| T4 | Verticillium lecanii (108 cfu/g) | 4.05 (2.24) | 4.15 (2.26) | 4.10 (2.25) | 3.70 (2.16) | 3.95 (2.22) | 3.83 (2.19) | 4.00 (2.23) | 4.05 (2.24) | 4.03 (2.23) | 3.99 (2.22) | 22.67 |
| T5 | Control | 4.70 (2.38) | 5.10 (2.46) | 4.90 (2.42) | 4.85 (2.41) | 5.40 (2.52) | 5.13 (2.47) | 5.35 (2.51) | 5.55 (2.55) | 5.45 (2.53) | 5.16 (2.47) | |
| S.Em ± | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.03 | |||
| CD at 5% | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.12 |
Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.
View original table image
| Treatment | — | *Mean larval population of P. xylostella per plant | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | Mean of Pooled values | Percent reduction over control |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Days after treatment | ||||||||||||
| 3 | Pooled value | 7 | Pooled value | 14 | Pooled value | |||||||
| 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | |||||||
| T1 | Beauveria bassiana (108 cfu/g) | 3.70 (2.16) | 3.95 (2.22) | 3.83 (2.19) | 2.75 (1.93) | 2.60 (1.84) | 2.68 (1.91) | 3.40 (2.09) | 2.95 (1.98) | 3.18 (2.04) | 3.23 (2.04) | 44.69 |
| T2 | Metarhizium anisopliae (108 cfu/g) | 3.85 (2.20) | 3.75 (2.17) | 3.80 (2.19) | 3.25 (2.05) | 2.75 (1.92) | 3.00 (1.99) | 4.05 (2.24) | 3.55 (2.11) | 3.80 (2.18) | 3.53 (2.12) | 39.56 |
| T3 | Bacillus thuringiensis (Kurstaki) (17600 IU/mg) | 3.25 (2.04) | 3.15 (2.02) | 3.20 (2.04) | 2.25 (1.80) | 2.05 (1.74) | 2.15 (1.77) | 2.45 (1.85) | 2.00 (1.72) | 2.23 (1.79) | 2.53 (1.86) | 56.67 |
| T4 | Verticillium lecanii (108 cfu/g) | 4.10 (2.25) | 4.25 (2.28) | 4.18 (2.27) | 3.55 (2.12) | 3.95 (2.22) | 3.75 (2.17) | 4.45 (2.33) | 4.25 (2.29) | 4.35 (2.31) | 4.09 (2.25) | 29.96 |
| T5 | Control | 5.25 (2.49) | 5.85 (2.61) | 5.55 (2.55) | 5.40 (2.52) | 6.10 (2.66) | 5.75 (2.59) | 6.30 (2.70) | 6.15 (2.66) | 6.23 (2.68) | 5.84 (2.60) | |
| S.Em ± | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.05 | |||
| CD at 5% | 0.27 | 0.24 | 0.14 | 0.24 | 0.21 | 0.19 | 0.14 | 0.29 | 0.16 |
Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.
View original table image
| — | Treatments | Dose (g/ml/ ha) | *Mean weight of harvested heads (kg/plot) | — | — | Total yield (kg/plot) | Overall mean yield of cabbage q/ha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st pick | 2nd pick | 3rd pick | |||||
| T1 | Beauveria bassiana (108 cfu /g) | 2500 g | 3.88 | 4.63 | 6.00 | 14.50 | 115.07 |
| T2 | Metarhizium anisopliae (108 cfu/g) | 2500 g | 4.13 | 4.38 | 5.63 | 14.13 | 112.14 |
| T3 | Bacillus thuringiensis (Kurstaki) (17600 IU/mg) | 1000 ml | 4.63 | 5.63 | 7.25 | 17.50 | 138.89 |
| T4 | Verticillium lecanii (108 cfu/g) | 2500 g | 2.88 | 4.13 | 4.25 | 11.25 | 89.28 |
| T5 | Control | - | 2.13 | 2.88 | 3.38 | 8.38 | 66.50 |
| S.Em. ± | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.06 | ||||
| CD at 5% | 0.21 | 0.33 | 0.20 |
Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.
View original table image
References
4 in the original paper- Mayanglambam S, Singh KD, Rajashekar Y. Current biological approaches for management of crucifer pests. Sci Rep. 2021 Jun 4;11(1):11831. Doi: 10.1038/s41598021-91088-4. Erratum in: Sci Rep. 2021 Sep 28;11(1):19658. PMID: 34088925; PMCID: PMC8178325.
- Pearson DE, Callaway RM. Indirect non target effects of host-specific biological control agents: Implications for biological control. Biol Control. 2005;35:288-298.
- Rani P, Jandial VK. Rice Brown Planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens (Stal.) Outbreak In Relation To Weather Factors. Indian J Entomol. 2009;72(2):176178.
- Talekar NS, Shelton AM. Biology, ecology, and management of the Diamondback moth. Annu Rev Entomol. 1993;38:275-301.