Comparative efficacy of bio-pesticides and chemicals against fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on tomato, Solanum lycopersicum [Mill.] under field conditions

Introduction

The tomato, Solanum lycopersicum (Miller), is a significant herbaceous crop from the Solanaceae family, commonly known as wolf apple, love apple, or Vilaayati baingan. It is versatile and can be consumed fresh in salads, curries, or as by-products such as chutney, pickle, soups, ketchup, sauce, powder, and purees (Manisha, C. and Kumar, A. 2022) [15] . Originating from the South American Andes, tomatoes are an essential part of a nutritious diet, rich in vitamins A and C, and often referred to as the "poor man's orange." They possess anti-cancer properties and serve as antioxidants; β-carotene helps prevent and neutralize free radical chain reactions, while ascorbic acid effectively scavenges superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, and other free radicals. Per 100 grams of ripe tomatoes contain Vitamin C (31.0 mg), Vitamin A (320 IU), Riboflavin (0.001 mg), Nicotinic acid (0.4 mg), and minerals such as Potassium (114.0 mg), Sulfur (24.0 mg), Chlorine (38.0 mg), Sodium (45.8 mg), Calcium (20.0 mg), Phosphorus (36.0 mg), Iron (1.8 mg), Magnesium (15.0 mg), and Copper (0.19 mg). In India, tomatoes are grown over an area of 0.85 million hectares with a production of 20.82 million metric tons. The major tomato-producing states include Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Karnataka, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, and Gujarat. In Uttar Pradesh, tomatoes cover an area of 23.05 thousand hectares, yielding 9.40 lakh metric tons (Horticulture Statistics Division, Department of Agriculture, Co-operation & Farmer's Welfare, 2023-24). Helicoverpa armigera is a major pest causing significant yield losses in tomato crops. This pest has recently been recognized as a national threat due to its economic damage to various agricultural crops across India. Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is a highly polyphagous species impacting a wide range of crops, including cotton, soybeans, tobacco, chickpea, chilies, and pigeon pea. It is globally distributed and causes approximately one billion dollars' worth of damage annually in India alone.

Half of all insecticides used in India are targeted at this pest. In Tamil Nadu, fruit losses range from 40-50%, while in Northern India, tomato fruit worm causes 30% fruit losses, with reported losses from this pest ranging from 5-55% in tomato-growing regions of India (Manisha, C. and Kumar, A. 2022) [15] .

Materials and Methods

The current study aimed to evaluate the "Comparative efficacy of biopesticides and chemicals against the fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner), on tomato, Solanum lycopersicum (Mill.) under field conditions" during the Rabi season of 2023-24. The field experiment took place at the Central Research Farm, Department of Entomology, Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology, and Sciences, Prayagraj. The experiment was arranged in a Randomized Block Design (RBD) with eight treatments and three replications, using a plot size of 2m x 1m. The tomato variety used was Sahoo. Two sprays were applied at fifteenday intervals using a hand-operated sprayer during morning hours to prevent photo-oxidation of the chemicals. The treatments included Novaluron -10 EC, Indoxacarb -14.5% SC, Fipronil -5% SC, Emamectin benzoate -5% SG + Indoxacarb -14.5% SC, Novaluron -10 EC + Indoxacarb -14.5% SC, Beauveria bassiana + Indoxacarb -14.5% SC, Bacillus thuringiensis + Indoxacarb -14.5% SC, and an untreated control. Observations on the percentage of fruit damage caused by the tomato fruit borer were recorded on five randomly selected plants in each replication, including unsprayed controls. Pre-and post-treatment observations were taken on the 3rd, 7th, and 14th days after each spray. The percentage of fruit borer damage in field conditions was calculated relative to the control. The data were averaged and subjected to appropriate transformations. After analysis, the data were tabulated according to the objectives for result interpretation. The standard procedures in agricultural statistics provided by Gomez and Gomez (1984) [24] were followed throughout. Data interpretation utilized the critical difference value calculated at a 0.05 probability level, with significance expressed at this same level.

Results and Discussions

The data on the percent infestation of the fruit borer observed on the 3rd, 7th, and 14th days after the first spray indicated that all treatments were significantly more effective than the control. Among the treatments, the lowest infestation rate was recorded with Emamectin benzoate + Indoxacarb (14.60%), followed by Indoxacarb (15.83%), Novaluron + Indoxacarb (16.48%), Beauveria bassiana + Indoxacarb (16.98%), Bacillus thuringiensis + Indoxacarb (17.40%), Novaluron (17.93%), and Fipronil (18.22%). These were all significantly superior to the control (23.03%). The treatments (Fipronil, Novaluron, Bacillus thuringiensis + Indoxacarb, Beauveria bassiana + Indoxacarb), (Novaluron + Indoxacarb, Indoxacarb), and (Emamectin benzoate + Indoxacarb) were found to be statistically at par with each other. The data on percent infestation on the 3rd, 7th, and 14th days after the second spray also showed that all treatments were significantly more effective than the control. Emamectin benzoate + Indoxacarb again had the lowest infestation rate (11.03%), followed by Indoxacarb (12.67%), Novaluron + Indoxacarb (13.14%), Beauveria bassiana + Indoxacarb (13.51%), Bacillus thuringiensis + Indoxacarb (14.28%), Novaluron (14.84%), and Fipronil (15.47%). These were all significantly better than the control (26.96%). The treatments (Fipronil, Novaluron, Bacillus thuringiensis + Indoxacarb), (Beauveria bassiana + Indoxacarb, Novaluron + Indoxacarb), and (Indoxacarb, Emamectin benzoate + Indoxacarb) were statistically similar to each other. Overall, the data revealed that all treatments significantly outperformed the control after both the first and second sprays. The lowest infestation across both sprays was recorded with Emamectin benzoate + Indoxacarb (12.81%), followed by Indoxacarb (14.25%), Novaluron + Indoxacarb (14.76%), Beauveria bassiana + Indoxacarb (15.24%), Bacillus thuringiensis + Indoxacarb (15.84%), Novaluron (16.39%), and Fipronil (16.84%), all of which were significantly better than the control (26.50%). The treatments (Fipronil, Novaluron), (Bacillus thuringiensis + Indoxacarb, Beauveria bassiana + Indoxacarb), and (Novaluron + Indoxacarb, Indoxacarb, Emamectin benzoate + Indoxacarb) were statistically at par with each other. The highest yield was achieved with Emamectin benzoate + Indoxacarb (207.39 q/ha), followed by Indoxacarb (190.34 q/ha), Novaluron + Indoxacarb (178.95 q/ha), Beauveria bassiana + Indoxacarb (158.54 q/ha), Bacillus thuringiensis + Indoxacarb (152.75 q/ha), Novaluron (145.14 q/ha), Fipronil (118.65 q/ha), and the untreated control, which had the lowest yield (83.25 q/ha). In terms of cost-benefit ratio, the most economical treatment was Emamectin benzoate + Indoxacarb (1:10.90), followed by Indoxacarb (1:10.32), Novaluron + Indoxacarb (1:9.48), Beauveria bassiana + Indoxacarb (1:8.53), Bacillus thuringiensis + Indoxacarb (1:8.04), Novaluron (1:7.94), and Fipronil (1:6.54). The untreated control had the lowest cost-benefit ratio (1:4.84).

Conclusion

The results of this study indicate that Emamectin benzoate 5% SG + Indoxacarb 14.5% SC and Indoxacarb 14.5% SC are the most effective treatments against the tomato fruit borer (Helicoverpa armigera), leading to the highest yields and the best cost-benefit ratios compared to other treatments. Novaluron 10% EC + Indoxacarb 14.5% SC, Beauveria bassiana + Indoxacarb 14.5% SC, and Bacillus thuringiensis + Indoxacarb 14.5% SC demonstrated moderate effectiveness. Novaluron 10% EC and Fipronil 5% SC were found to be the least effective in controlling Helicoverpa armigera. Therefore, it is recommended that these effective insecticides be rotated within Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs to prevent issues such as insecticidal resistance and pest resurgence. Integrating botanicals into IPM strategies is also advisable to reduce the indiscriminate use of chemical pesticides, thus minimizing environmental pollution and safeguarding beneficial insects.

References

1. Anil MP, Kumar A. Comparative efficacy and economics of certain chemicals and biopesticides against pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in chickpea at Naini, Prayagraj, India. Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2022;34(22):269-276.
2. Bandhavi HL, Kumar A. Efficacy and economics of different insecticides against fruit borer [Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)] on tomato crop. Pharma Innovation J. 2022;11(6):1254-1258.
3. Bhanuprakash SV, Sharanappa, Kumar A. Seasonal incidence of tomato fruit borer and efficacy of chemical, bio insecticides and HaNPV against Helicoverpa armigera in tomato. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2018;8(1):2366-2369.
4. Das BC, Patra S, Dhote VW, Alam SKF, Chatterjee ML, Samanta A. Mix formulations: An alternative option for management of gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera and pod fly, Melanagromyza obtusa M. in pigeon pea. Agric Res Commun Cent Legume Res. 2014;38(3):396-401.
5. Deepthi YN, Yadav U. Comparison with botanicals and the bio-agents on fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in tomato. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2022;10(2):223-226.
6. Divyanshu S, Tayde AR. Bioefficacy of certain chemicals and biopesticides against pod borer [Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)] on chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2023;35(18):49-54.
7. Jamir RL, Kumar A. Field efficacy and economics of some biopesticides against tomato fruit borer [Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)]. Pharma Innovation J. 2022;11(6):1798-1802.
8. Kachave DR, Sonkamble MM, Patil SK. Bioefficacy of newer insecticides against tomato fruit borer (Helicoverpa armigera Hubner) and leaf miner (Tuta absoluta Meyrick). J Entomol Zool Stud. 2020;8(3):346-352.
9. Khan MSI, Hossain ME, Farhana F. Management of tomato fruit borer (Helicoverpa armigera Hubner) through bio and chemical pesticides. Int J Bus Soc Sci Res. 2023;11(1):31-36.
10. Kumar S, Umrao RS, Kumar A, Patel VK, Debnath R, Kumar A. Evaluation of the efficacy of insecticides and bio-pesticides against Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on tomato. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2020;8(3):555-558.
11. Lalhluzuala I, Kumar A. Management of tomato fruit borer [Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)] in Trans Yamuna region of Prayagraj (U.P). Pharma Innovation J. 2022;11(9):2685-2689.
12. Mohanty S, Tayde AR. Comparative efficacy of certain insecticides and biopesticides against chickpea pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on chickpea, Cicer arietinum (L.). Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2022;34(22):734-740.
13. Patil PV, Pawar SA, Kadu RV, Pawar DB. Bio-efficacy of newer insecticides, botanicals and microbial against tomato fruit borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) infesting tomato. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2018;6(5):20062011.
14. Ruksana M, Kumar A. Comparative efficacy and economics of selected insecticides against tomato fruit borer [Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)]. Pharma Innovation J. 2022;11(6):1758-1762.
15. Reddy RD, Kumar A, Sai KP. Field efficacy of some insecticides against tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). J Entomol Zool Stud. 2021;9(1):1434-1436.
16. Sai KP, Tayde AR, Reddy RD, Srivastava VK. Management of gram pod borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in chickpea with bio-pesticides and combination. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2021;9(1):561-563.
17. Safna M, Naik VK, Desai VS, Karmarkar MS, Shinde BD, Raut PP. Evaluation of the efficacy of some insecticides against fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) infesting tomato. Int J Chem Stud. 2018;6(2):1158-1163.
18. Sathish BN, Singh VV, Kumar S, Kumar S. Efficacy of different chemical insecticides and bio-pesticides against tomato fruit borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on tomato crop. Bull Environ Pharmacol Life Sci. 2018;7(12):107-110.
19. Sindhuja Y, Kumar HS, Yadav U. Comparative efficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis with botanicals and chemicals against gram pod borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]. Pharma Innovation J. 2021;10(5):709-712.
20. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. John wiley & sons; 1984 Feb 17.