Efficacy of biopesticides against aphids Aphis craccivora infesting groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)

Introduction

Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) is a leguminous crop belonging to the family Fabaceae, characterized by yellow flowers and geocarpy, where pods develop underground after fertilization (FAO, 2024) [8] . India is one of the largest producers of groundnut globally, followed by China, the United States, and Nigeria. Within India, major producing states include Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra, which contribute significantly to total oilseed production (FAO, 2023; Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, 2023) [7,24] . Groundnuts are highly nutritious, rich in protein, healthy fats, vitamins (especially E and B-complex), and minerals such as magnesium, phosphorus, and potassium. They are a staple in many diets and are used in various culinary applications, including cooking oil, snacks, and confectionery (Arya et al., 2016; United States Department of Agriculture, 2024; Food and Agriculture Organization, 2022) [2,38,9] . Groundnut cultivation is significantly challenged by insect pests that adversely affect crop yield and quality. Key pests include aphids, which can cause direct damage by feeding on plant sap and indirectly by transmitting viruses such as the groundnut rosette virus, leading to severe crop losses (Meyer et al., 2022) [23] . Additionally, leaf miners can damage foliage, reducing photosynthetic capacity and overall plant vigor. The presence of thrips is another concern, as they can affect flowering and pod development, further exacerbating yield reduction (Ghosh et al., 2023a) [12] . Furthermore, the development of pest resistance to chemical insecticides poses a significant challenge for effective pest management, necessitating the adoption of integrated pest management (IPM) strategies that combine biological controls and resistant varieties (Reddy et al., 2023) [28] . Collectively, these insect pests represent a critical challenge for sustainable groundnut production, highlighting the need for ongoing research and adaptive management practices (Singh et al., 2021) [34] . Aphids, particularly the Aphis craccivora (black legume aphid) and Myzus persicae (green peach aphid), are among the most destructive pests affecting groundnuts.

These pests feed on the sap of plants, leading to reduced vigor, stunted growth, and wilting. The presence of aphids can also result in the development of sooty Mold, which can hinder photosynthesis. Chemical pesticides are commonly employed in agriculture to manage pests and boost crop productivity, but their use is associated with several negative effects on health and the environment. Prolonged exposure can result in serious health issues, including respiratory illnesses and cancer (Garry et al., 2002) [11] . Environmental impacts include soil and water contamination, harming non-target organisms and disrupting ecosystems (Kegley et al., 2013) [17] . Additionally, the emergence of pesticide-resistant pests necessitates increased chemical applications, perpetuating this cycle of harm (Gressel, 2002) [15] . To mitigate these issues, integrated pest management (IPM) practices can be employed, combining biological, cultural, and chemical strategies to reduce reliance on chemical pesticides (Kumar & Kumar, 2014) [20] . Transitioning to organic farming methods also presents a viable solution, promoting biodiversity and soil health while minimizing chemical exposure (Reganold & Wachter, 2016) [29] . One of the important methods of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is the use of biopesticides. Biopesticides are naturally derived substances used to control pests and diseases in agriculture, including microbial, plant-based, and other natural products that target specific pests while minimizing harm to beneficial organisms. One of the primary advantages of biopesticides is their environmental safety, as they tend to break down more rapidly than synthetic chemicals, reducing the risk of soil and water contamination (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2023; Food and Agriculture Organization, 2021) [39,6] . Additionally, biopesticides generally pose lower health risks to humans and non-target species, making them safer options for farmworkers and consumers (Thompson et al., 2021) [37] . They also contribute to resistance management by offering diverse modes of action that pests are less likely to overcome, thus prolonging the effectiveness of pest control strategies (Ghosh et al., 2023b) [13] . Furthermore, biopesticides are compatible with integrated pest management (IPM) practices, promoting sustainable agricultural systems by allowing for the integration of various pest control methods. The present study was undertaken to assess the efficacy of certain biopesticides against Aphids (Aphis craccivora) infesting groundnut under field condition and principal aim of the study was to contribute to more sustainable and environment friendly management practices of Aphids (Aphis craccivora) in farming communities.

Materials and Methods

Location and experimental layout

The field experiment was conducted at Instructional farm, Junagadh agricultural university, Junagadh in the south saurashtra region of Gujarat, India during kharif, 2021. The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with seven treatments including untreated check and the treatments were replicated 4 times. Gross plots size was 5 m × 2.7 m and net plot size 4 m × 1.8 m. The groundnut crop was sown with spacing of 45 cm × 10 cm. GG 20 variety was used for the investigation. The plots were differentiated from one another by keeping space of 2 feet between treatments and 1 m between replications. The treatments as presented in Table 1 includes T 1: Nomuraea rileyi (Faolow) Samson 1.15 WP @ 2.5 gm/ l, T 2: Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuilemin 1.15 WP @ 2.5 gm/ l, T 3: Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15 WP @ 2.5 gm/ l, T 4: Lecanicillium lecanii 1.15 WP @ 2.5 gm/ l, T 5: Bacillus thuringiensis 1 WG @ 2.5 gm/ l, T 6: Azardiractin 0.15% W/W 2.5 ml/ l, T 7: Untreated control.

Method of treatment application and agronomic practices

All the bio-pesticides treatments were applied using battery operated knapsack sprayer. When the pest reached its respective ETL level, first spraying was done and the subsequent spray after 15 days when the population rebuilt up. Recommended agronomic practices such as thinning, weeding, pre-emergence weedicide application etc. were adopted except plant protection measures to avoid its effects on the pest populations other than the treatments. The sprayer person was secured with protective equipment.

Method of recording observations

Observations of aphids, Aphis craccivora were recorded from randomly selected 10 plants/net plot. The population of aphid was counted from top, middle and lower leaves from each selected plant. The observations were recorded prior to 24 hours before each spray as well as after 3, 5, 7 and 10 days after each spray.

Statistical analysis

The data was analysed using OPSTAT software (Sheoran et al., 1998) [32] . These data were subjected to ANOVA and arc sine value transformation (Gomez and Gomez, 1984) [14] was performed. DMRT test was calculated at a 5% significance level to compare means. Data visualization was done using ggploT 2 package (Wickham H, 2016) [40] in R version 4.4.1 (R Core Team, 2024) [26] . The efficacy of biopesticides treatments were represented by corrected percent mortality by using the formula given by Henderson and Tilton (1955) [16] .

Results and Discussion

Efficacy of biopesticides on aphids, A. craccivora

The data on efficacy of biopesticides on aphids infesting groundnut, first spray and second spray are presented in Table 2 and visualized in Figure 1.

First Spray

The population of aphids before first spray was more or less uniform in all the treatments as there was no significant difference among them. All the biopesticides treatments were found significantly superior to control. At 3 DAS, Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuilemin 1.15 WP found most effective by recording highest (37.57%) corrected percent mortality of aphids which was at par with Lecanicillium lecanii 1.15 WP (37.43%) and Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15 WP (35.95%). Azardiractin 0.15% W/W (32.45%) and Bacillus thuringiensis 1 WG (26.24%) were found moderately effective. The least effective treatment was Nomuraea rileyi (Faolow) Samson 1.15 WP (8.44%). At 5 DAS, there was a slight change in the treatments trend, as Lecanicillium lecanii 1.15 WP was found to be the most effective treatment with 51.84 corrected percent mortality of aphids which was at par with Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuilemin 1.15 WP (50.86%) and Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15 WP (47.03%). Again, the moderately effective treatments were Azardiractin 0.15% W/W (45.11%) and Bacillus thuringiensis 1 WG (28.99%) which were at par with each other. The least effective treatment was Nomuraea rileyi (Faolow) Samson 1.15 WP (13.72%) which is a similar trend as seen on 3 DAS. At 7 DAS, the most efficacious treatment was Lecanicillium lecanii 1.15 WP which shown 55.70 corrected percent mortality of aphids which was at par with Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuilemin 1.15 WP (55.25%), Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15 WP (54.19%) and Azardiractin 0.15% W/W (48.82%). The moderately efficacious treatment was Bacillus thuringiensis 1 WG with 30.78 corrected percent mortality of aphids and the least effective was Nomuraea rileyi (Faolow) Samson 1.15 WP (19.85%). More or less same manner of efficacy trend was seen at 10 DAS as seen at 5 DAS.

Second spray

The population of aphids before second spray was more or less uniform in all the treatments as there was no significant difference among them. At 3 DAS after second spray, Lecanicillium lecanii 1.15 WP was reported highest corrected percent mortality (36.74%) of aphids which was at par with Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15 WP (32.92%). The Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15 WP treatment was also at par with Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuilemin 1.15 WP (28.36%) and Azardiractin 0.15% W/W (26.83%) these both biopesticides were the next effective treatments. The moderately effective biopesticide treatment was Bacillus thuringiensis 1 WG which sown 20.21 corrected percent mortality of aphids. The least efficacious treatment was Nomuraea rileyi (Faolow) Samson 1.15 WP (9.78%) which sown this repetitive manner as seen on first spray. More or less, similar trend of efficacy of biopesticides on aphid population was observed at 5 DAS and 7 DAS. At 10 DAS, slight decline of corrected percent mortality was observed in all biopesticide treatment with more or less similar trend as 3, 5 and 7 DAS.

Overall mean

It was evident from the overall mean data on the percent reduction in the aphid population that Lecanicillium lecanii 1.15 WP was significantly superior among the rest of the treatments and recorded 51.24 corrected percent mortality of aphids which was at par with Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuilemin 1.15 WP (48.83%). The next efficacious treatment was Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15 WP (47.78%) which was at par with Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuilemin 1.15 WP, Azardiractin 0.15% W/W (42.51%) was subsequent effective treatment after Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15 WP. Bacillus thuringiensis 1 WG (27.84%) found out to be moderately effective treatment and the Nomuraea rileyi (Faolow) Samson 1.15 WP was the least effective treatment with 15.28 corrected percent mortality of aphids. Sahayaraj and Namachivayam (2011) [30] reported that among the tested fungi in lab condition on groundnut pests, Lecanicillium lecanii suppressed 62 per cent of A. craccivora population at 39 Days after seedling emergence. El-Salam et al (2012) [5] studied the effects of certain entomopathogenic fungi on against bean aphids, A. craccivora in broad bean crop in field condition and stated that L. lecanii was the most effective with 73.3% population reduction and B. bassiana caused 45.5% aphid population reduction. El-Gawad et al (2008) [4] reported that Highest reduction and yield gain was observed when fungus L. lecanii used against cowpea aphid, A. craccivora on faba bean in Egypt. Saranya et al (2010) [31] studied the efficacy of different entomopathogenic fungi against cowpea aphid, A. craccivora in laboratory conditions and concluded that among the five entomopathogenic fungi, L. lecanii, H. thompsonii and B. bassiana were found to be the promising virulent isolates furthermore they stated that by testing their field efficacy, they can be used as potential biocontrol agent for the management of cowpea aphid. Ramanujan et al (2017) [27] evaluated the field efficacy of 10 isolates of fungal pathogens against cowpea aphid, A. craccivora and they revealed that Vl-8 isolate of L. lecanii, Ma-6 isolates of M. anisopliae and Bb-5a isolate of B. bassiana showed 78.01%, 77.42% and 76.91% reduction of aphid population, respectively, over control and were on par with each other. Abdel-Raheem et al (2021) [1] studied the pathogenicity of certain entomopathogenic fungi on Fabae bean Aphid, A. craccivora in laboratory condition and reported that the concentration (10 9 spores/ml.) gave 100% mortality with L. lecanii and B. bassiana then M. anisopliae. The Lowest LC 50 value of 2.1 x 10 6 spores/ml. was recorded by V. lecanii, which showed higher virulence compared to other entomopathogenic fungi. Manushree et al (2022) [22] conducted the experiment on efficacy of biorational insecticides against aphids, A. craccivora in Amaranthus at Shivamogga, Karnataka, India and reported that the highest per cent reduction of aphid population was recorded in L. lecanii 1 × 10 9 CFU @ 1 g/l (62.87%), followed by NSKE 5% (53.59%). Sujatha and Bharpoda (2016) [35] reported that B. bassiana found highly effective for reducing the population of aphid A. craccivora being at par with superior treatments viz., Tobacco decoction (Hot water extraction) @ 2% and Tobacco decoction (Cold water extraction) @ 2% in green gram crop sown during summer at Anand, Gujarat, India. Sujatha and Bharpoda (2017) [36] also reported these similar findings in kharif green gram. Baskaran and Rajavel (2013) [3] declared that B. bassiana was effective in reducing the population of aphids (A. craccivora) on groundnut. Naik and Shekharappa (2009) [25] depicted that oil-based formulation of L. lecanii was best and recorded 7.75 aphids/3 leaves followed by B. bassiana oil based recorded the 9.75 aphids/3 leaves after second spray for aphid management in kharif okra. Above findings are in agree with present study. Kulkarni (2017) [18] studied field evaluation of entomopathogenic fungi for management of aphid, A. craccivora in lucerne with combinations and sole concentrations and revealed that sole concentrations of M. anisopliae and N. rileyi proved least effective which contradict the present findings as M. anisopliae was highly effective for reducing the aphid population. However, N. rileyi was also less effective in this present study which agrees with above study. Furthermore, the less effectiveness of N. rileyi against aphid, A. craccivora could happened due to its narrow host range and is mostly limited to lepidopteran larvae (Fronza et al, 2017) [10] .

Discussion on Efficacy of biopesticides on aphids, A. craccivora

Conclusion

The results from present study indicate that the biopesticides tested were effective against aphids, A. craccivora infesting groundnut. Among the biopesticides, Lecanicillium lecanii 1.15 WP was highly effective against aphids, A. craccivora followed by Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuilemin 1.15 WP and Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15 WP. The Azardiractin 0.15% W/W was moderately effective. The less effective biopesticide were Bacillus thuringiensis 1 WG and Nomuraea rileyi (Faolow) Samson 1.15 WP.

Acknowledgement

Authors are very grateful to faculty of Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh, Gujarat, India for providing the appropriate platform for this research and constant guidance.

References

1. Abdel-Raheem M, Saad AF, Abdel-Rahman I. Entomopathogenic fungi on faba bean aphid, Aphis craccivora (Koch) (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Romanian Biotechnology Letters. 2021;26(4):2861-2867.
2. Arya SS, Salve AR, Chauhan S. Peanuts as functional food: a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2016;53(1):31-41.
3. Baskaran RK, Rajavel DS. Management of sucking insect pests of groundnut through bio-agents and botanicals. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences. 2013;21(2):286-290.
4. El-Gawad AHA, Sayed AM, et al. Evaluation of entomopathogenic fungus Verticillium lecanii (Zimmermann) Vieges and the predator Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) against cowpea aphid, Aphis craccivora (Koch) on faba bean in Egypt. Egyptian Academic Journal of Biological Sciences Section A Entomology. 2008;1(2):211-216.
5. El-Salam AA, Salem SA, El-Kholy MY. Efficiency of nimbecidine and certain entomopathogenic fungi formulations against bean aphids, Aphis craccivora in broad bean field. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection. 2012;45(19):2272-2277.
6. Food and Agriculture Organization. Biopesticides for sustainable agriculture. Rome: FAO; 2021. Available from: https://www.fao.org/
7. Food and Agriculture Organization. FAOSTAT: crops and livestock products. Rome: FAO; 2023. Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/
8. Food and Agriculture Organization. Good agricultural practices (GAP): groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Rome: FAO; 2024. Available from: https://www.fao.org/
9. Food and Agriculture Organization. Groundnuts (peanuts) and derived products. Rome: FAO; 2022. Available from: https://www.fao.org/
10. Fronza E, Specht A, Heinzen H, de Barros NM. Metarhizium (Nomuraea) rileyi as biological control agent. Biocontrol Science and Technology. 2017;27(11):1243-1264.
11. Garry VF, Harkins ME, Erdman S, Allen J, DeRosa C, Myers J, et al. Pesticides and health: the link to chronic disease. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2002;110(1):61-64.
12. Ghosh A, Patra B, Roy S, Ghosh D, Dey S. Challenges of thrips in groundnut cultivation. International Journal of Agricultural Research. 2023;18(3):150-157.
13. Ghosh A, Paul S, Saha S, Ghosh D, Ghosh S, Sahu N. Using biopesticides for sustainable pest management: opportunities and challenges. Crop Protection. 2023;146:105727.
14. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1984. Available from: https://www.wiley.com/enus/Statistical+Procedures+for+Agricultural+Researchp-9780471874242
15. Gressel J. Trends in the use of herbicides. Weed Science. 2002;50(2):176-182.
16. Henderson CF, Tilton FW. Test with acaricides against the brown wheat mite. Journal of Economic Entomology. 1955;48(2):157-161.
17. Kegley S, Boucher J, McNair B, Gottfried C, Newhall L, Vandenberg C. PAN pesticide database. Pesticide Action Network; 2013. Available from: https://www.panna.org
18. Kulkarni NS. Field evaluation of entomopathogenic fungi for the management of cowpea aphid, Aphis craccivora in lucerne. Journal of Eco-friendly Agriculture. 2017;12(1):51-53.
19. Kumar V, Jain P, Singh R, Shankar D, Soni P, Yadav A. The impact of leaf miners on groundnut crop yield. Agricultural Entomology. 2022;45(2):89-95.
20. Kumar V, Kumar A. Integrated pest management: a global overview. Journal of Pest Science. 2014;87(1):145-157.
21. Kumar V, Singh R, Kaur G, Sharma M, Jaiswal V, Sharma V. Biopesticides in integrated pest management. Journal of Agricultural Research. 2022;15(1):55-67.
22. Manjushree BJ, Hegde JN, Rajashekarappa K, Naik BG, Adivappar N. Efficacy of biorational insecticides against aphids, Aphis craccivora in Amaranthus. Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems. 2022;28(2).
23. Meyer J, Smith K, Johnson R, Davies J, Williams S, Thompson C. Insect pest management in groundnut: a review. Journal of Pest Management Science. 2022;78(4):321-330.
24. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. Agricultural statistics at a glance 2023. New Delhi: Government of India; 2023. Available from: https://agricoop.gov.in/
25. Naik PH, Shekharappa S. Field evaluation of different entomopathogenic fungal formulations against sucking pests of okra. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2009;22(3 Suppl):575-578.
26. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2024. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/
27. Ramanujam B, Poornesha B, Dileep RC, Japur K. Field evaluation of entomofungal pathogens against cowpea aphid, Aphis craccivora Koch, and their effect on two coccinellid predators. International Journal of Pest Management. 2017;63(1):101-104.
28. Reddy M, Suresh K, Rao D, Kumar A, Ghosh S, Singh R. Resistance management strategies for insect pests in groundnut. Crop Protection. 2023;146:105727.
29. Reganold JP, Wachter JM. Organic farming in the twenty-first century. Nature Plants. 2016;2:15221.
30. Sahayaraj K, Namachivayam S. Field evaluation of three entomopathogenic fungi on groundnut pests. Tropicultura. 2011;29(3):143-147.
31. Saranya S, Ushakumari R, Jacob S, Philip BM. Efficacy of different entomopathogenic fungi against cowpea aphid, Aphis craccivora (Koch). Journal of Biopesticides. 2010;3(Special Issue):138.
32. Sheoran OP, Tonk DS, Kaushik LS, Hasija RC, Pannu RS. Statistical software package for agricultural research workers. In: Hooda DS, Hasija RC, editors. Recent advances in information theory, statistics and computer applications. Hisar: CCS HAU; 1998. p. 13943. Available from: https://opstat.somee.com/opstat/
33. Singh A, Kumar V, Choudhury A, Sharma D, Yadav M, Singh S. Impact of aphid infestation on groundnut yield and quality. Indian Journal of Plant Protection. 2022;50(1):56-62.
34. Singh A, Sharma R, Verma S, Jain P, Kaur G, Dey R. Integrated pest management approaches for groundnut. Journal of Crop Protection. 2021;40(1):23-30.
35. Sujatha B, Bharpoda TM. Bio-efficacy of biopesticides against sucking pests in green gram grown during summer. Advances in Life Sciences. 2016;5(16):59345943.
36. Sujatha B, Bharpoda TM. Bio-efficacy of biopesticides against sucking pests in green gram grown during Kharif. International Journal of Pure and Applied Biosciences. 2017;5(4):1827-1834.
37. Thompson A, Ralston RA, Erwin A, Thompson C, Davies D, Anderson R. Health and safety considerations in pesticide use. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2021;27(4):273-285.
38. United States Department of Agriculture. Food data central: peanuts, all types, raw. Washington (DC): USDA; 2024. Available from: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
39. United States Environmental Protection Agency. What are biopesticides? Washington (DC): EPA; 2023. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-usedpesticide-products/what-are-biopesticides
40. Wickham H. ggploT 2: elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2016. Available from: https://ggploT 2 .tidyverse.org