Efficacy of biopesticides against mustard aphid Lipaphis erysimi (kaltenbach) on mustard

Introduction

Oilseed crops constitute an important component of Indian agriculture and contribute substantially to the country's agricultural production and edible oil requirements (Dodiya and Barad, 2022) [1,2] . Among the oilseed crops, rapeseed-mustard occupies a prominent position and is cultivated extensively during the Rabi season under both irrigated and rainfed conditions. Indian mustard, Brassica juncea L. (Zern. & Coss ex Coss), is one of the major cultivated species of the rapeseedmustard group and is widely grown in different parts of India. The crop requires cool and dry weather during its growing period and is generally cultivated from September-October to February-March ( [4] Rahman, 2002; [1] Khavse et al., 2014; [6] Anonymous, 2024) [3,5,6] . Mustard is an important source of edible oil and provides considerable nutritional and economic value. Its seeds generally contain about 37-49 percent oil, while mustard oil is widely used as an edible oil, condiment and in several industrial and pharmaceutical applications ( [7] Bhowmik et al., 2014; [8] Barfa et al., 2016; [9] [10] Dharavath et al., 2017 Dodiya et al., 2025) [7,8,9] . However, productivity of mustard is constrained by several biotic factors, particularly insect pests, which attack the crop at different stages of growth. More than 38 insect pest species have been reported to be associated with mustard in India. Among these, the mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach), is considered one of the most destructive and economically important pests ( [11] Bakhetia and Sekhon, 1989; [5] Patel et al., 2019) [11,12] . The mustard aphid, L. erysimi (Hemiptera: Aphididae), is an important yield-limiting pest of mustard and has been reported to cause avoidable yield losses ranging from 10.20 to 61.10 percent (Dhillon et al., 2022 [13] ). Depending upon the crop growth stage, aphid population buildup and prevailing agroclimatic conditions, the extent of damage may vary considerably ( [15] Rana, 2005; [17] Singh and Sharma, 2009; [18] Chaudhari et al., 2022; [20] Patel et al., 2024; [1] Dodiya et al., 2024) [16,18,19,21,14] . Management of mustard aphid is essential for minimizing yield losses. Although synthetic insecticides provide effective control, their repeated use may adversely affect non-target organisms and the environment (Dodiya et al., 2023) [10,14] . Therefore, biopesticides have gained importance as eco-friendly alternatives that can reduce dependence on conventional repeated use may adversely affect non-target organisms and the environment (Dodiya et al., 2023) [10, 14] .

Therefore, biopesticides have gained importance as ecofriendly alternatives that can reduce dependence on conventional insecticides and support sustainable integrated pest management. The efficacy of biopesticides against L. erysimi may vary with the type and concentration of biopesticide, environmental conditions and pest population. Hence, field evaluation of different biopesticides is necessary to identify effective treatments for aphid suppression. Therefore, the present investigation was undertaken to evaluate the bioefficacy of different biopesticides against mustard aphid, L. erysimi, under field conditions.

Materials and Methods

A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the bio-efficacy of different biopesticides against mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach), at the College Farm, N. M. College of Agriculture, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, Gujarat, during Rabi 2023-24 and 2024-25. Mustard variety GDM 4 was used for the experiment. The experiment was laid out in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with eight treatments and three replications.

Biopesticide treatments and application

Eight treatments comprising seven biopesticides and an untreated control were evaluated. The treatments included Metarhizium anisopliae 1.15 WP (1 × 10 cfu/g) [22] @ 0.007 percent (60 g/10 L water), Beauveria bassiana 1.15 WP (1 × 10 cfu/g) @ 0.007 per⁸ cent (60 g/10 L), Lecanicillium lecaniii 1.15 WP (1 × 10 cfu/g) @ 0.007 percent (60 g/10 [22] L), custard apple leaf extract (Annona reticulata L.) @ 10 percent (1000 ml/10 L), azadirachtin (1500 ppm) @ 0.00075 percent (50 ml/10 L), neem seed kernel extract @ 5 percent (500 g/10 L), Novel plus @ 2 percent (200 ml/10 L) and water spray as control. The crop was sown on 27 th November 2023 and 20 th November 2024 during Rabi 2023-24 and 2024-25, respectively. All recommended agronomic practices were followed throughout the crop period. Biopesticides were applied as foliar sprays using a 15 L capacity knapsack sprayer. The first spray was applied at the appearance of the aphid population, followed by a second spray 15 days after the first application. Care was taken to avoid spray drift and ensure uniform coverage of the crop.

Assessment of aphid population

The efficacy of the treatments was assessed by recording the aphid population before spraying and at 1, 3, 7 and 14 days after each spray. Five randomly selected and tagged plants were used for observations in each net plot. Aphids were counted on the top 10 cm portion of the central twig of each selected plant, following the method described by Pradhan et al. (1960) [23,24] and Mathur and Singh (1986) [25,26] . The observations were recorded with minimum disturbance to the aphid population.

Seed yield and avoidable yield loss

At physiological maturity, each plot was harvested separately and the produce was threshed and cleaned. Seed yield was recorded on a net plot basis and converted to kg/ha. The percentage increase in seed yield over control was calculated as:

where T = seed yield of the respective treatment (kg/ha) and C = seed yield in control (kg/ha).

The avoidable yield loss due to mustard aphid was estimated according to Khosla (1977) [20,21] using:

where Yt = seed yield in the effective treatment and Yc = seed yield in the control.

Statistical analysis

The data on aphid population recorded before treatment and at 1, 3, 7 and 14 days after application were subjected to analysis of variance following the RCBD procedure. Aphid population data were subjected to square-root transformation before statistical analysis. Treatment-wise observations were analysed for individual observation periods as well as pooled over observation periods and years. The experimental data were analysed using the analysis of variance procedure described by Steel and Torrie (1980) [27,28] . 1 and Fig. 1.

Results and Discussion

Second season (Rabi 2024-25)

The results obtained during Rabi 2024-25 are presented in Table 2 and Fig. 1. The pretreatment aphid population during the first spray ranged from 140.67 to 190.67 aphids per 10 cm central twig and did not differ significantly among treatments, indicating uniform infestation before spraying. Similar to the previous season, all the biopesticide treatments significantly suppressed the aphid population after both sprays. Azadirachtin @ 0.00075% was consistently the most effective treatment, followed by L. lecanii @ 0.007% and NSKE @ 5%.

After the second spray, azadirachtin recorded only 47.67 aphids/10 cm central twig at 1 DAS, followed by L. lecanii (50.33 aphids/10 cm central twig) and NSKE (52.33), whereas the untreated control recorded 239.67 aphids. At 3 DAS, azadirachtin further reduced the population to 24.67 aphids, while L. lecanii and NSKE recorded 32.33 and 33.00 aphids, respectively.

The comparatively moderate efficacy of M. anisopliae and B. bassiana may be associated with differences in fungal infectivity and the prevailing environmental conditions affecting establishment and infection of the aphid population.

Nevertheless, these treatments provided significantly better suppression than the untreated control.

Pooled analysis of two years

The pooled results of Rabi 2023-24 and 2024-25 are presented in Table 3 and The significant effects of treatment, spray and observation period indicated differences in the efficacy of the biopesticides across spray schedules and observation periods. However, the non-significant interactions involving year and treatment indicated that the relative efficacy of the tested biopesticides remained generally consistent across the two seasons. Significant spray × period, spray × treatment and period × treatment interactions indicated variation in aphid population and treatment efficacy across sprays and observation periods.

However, the year and its interactions with spray, period and treatment were nonsignificant, indicating that the relative efficacy of the biopesticides remained consistent across both years. The nonsignificant higher-order interactions further confirmed the overall stability of treatment performance across seasons. The pooled analysis revealed that azadirachtin (1500 ppm) @ 0.00075% recorded the lowest aphid population (46.83 aphids/10 cm central twig) and was significantly superior to NSKE @ 5% (54.41) and L. lecanii 1.15 WP @ 0.007% (54.85), whereas NSKE and L. lecanii were statistically at par with each other. The consistent performance of these treatments over two consecutive years indicated their stable bio-efficacy against L. erysimi. The superior performance of neem-based treatments is supported by Prasad (1997) [28,25] , who reported 73-83 percent reduction in mustard aphid population with neem extract and neem oil, Similarly, Kumar et al. (2020) [29,14] , Yadav (2020) [30, 3] and Arvind et al. (2025) [31] reported high efficacy of azadirachtin and neem-based formulations against mustard aphid, supporting the present findings Among the microbial biopesticides, L. lecani showed comparatively higher efficacy and was statistically at par with NSKE, whereas azadirachtin recorded a significantly lowe aphid population than both treatments Beauveria bassiana and M. anisopliae showed moderate suppression. This agrees with Meena et al. (2013) [4,32] , who reported effective suppression of mustard aphid with NSKE, B. bassiana, L. lecanii and M. anisopliae. The strong performance of L. lecanii is further supported by Singh et al.

(2008) [33,23] , Janu et al. (2018) [32,2] and Pradhan et al. (2020) [17, 20] , who reported substantial reduction in aphid population with V. lecanii/L. lecanii under field conditions. Similarly, Pal et al. (2020) [15,5] and Yadav and Singh (2021) [34,35] reported effective suppression of L. erysimi with azadirachtin, B. bassiana, NSKE and neem based treatments. The present results were partially consistent with Pradhan et al. (2020) [17] , who reported L. lecanii as superior to azadirachtin, whereas in the present study azadirachtin recorded the lowest pooled aphid population and was significantly superior to L. lecanii, whereas L. lecanii was statistically at par with NSKE. Such differences may be associated with variation in fungal strains, formulations, mustard cultivars, aphid pressure and prevailing agro-climatic conditions. The comparatively lower efficacy of B. bassiana and M. anisopliae under field conditions also differed from the laboratory findings of Deka et al. (2017) [22] ; Sajid et al. (2017) [36, 19] ; Barad et al., (2023) [26,37] and Dodiya et al., (2024) [21] , who reported higher mortality with these fungi. This variation may be attributed to differences in temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation, fungal strain, inoculum concentration and the contrasting environmental conditions of laboratory and field experiments. The custard apple leaf extract @ 10% was the least effective treatment, recording 144.22 aphids per 10 cm central twig. Similar lower efficacy of non-neem botanicals has been reported by Kumar (2025) [38,10] and Aswitha and Yadav (2023) [39] . Overall, the present findings demonstrate that

Effect of biopesticides on seed yield

The effect of different biopesticides on seed yield during Rabi 2023-24, 2024-25 and their pooled analysis is presented in Table 4. Treatments that effectively suppressed L. erysimi generally recorded higher seed yield than the untreated control. During both seasons, azadirachtin @ 0.00075% recorded the highest seed yield, followed by NSKE @ 5% and L. lecanii @ 0.007%. In the pooled analysis, azadirachtin recorded the highest seed yield (1600.00 kg/ha), followed by NSKE (1586.33 kg/ha) and L. lecanii (1557.00 kg/ha), whereas the untreated control recorded only 928.50 kg/ha. The higher seed yield under these treatments may be attributed to their effective suppression of aphid infestation, resulting in reduced feeding damage and better seed development.

The present findings are in agreement with Yadav and Singh (2015) [40,41] , who reported higher mustard seed yield with biointensive management involving V. lecanii and NSKE. Similarly, Sharma et al. (2017) [42,12] observed significant improvement in seed yield with L. lecanii + NSKE and B. bassiana + NSKE. The present results are also consistent with Arvind et al. (2025) [31] , who reported the highest seed yield with azadirachtin followed by NSKE and other biopesticides, supporting the superior performance of azadirachtin and neembased treatments observed in the present study. The present findings were partially in agreement with Kumar (2025) [38] , who reported V. lecanii as the most effective biopesticide, whereas azadirachtin recorded the highest seed yield in the present investigation and remained statistically at par with NSKE and L. lecanii. Conversely, Deka et al. (2017) [22,6] and Sajid et al. (2017) [36,19] reported greater efficacy of M. anisopliae under laboratory or in vitro conditions. The comparatively moderate performance of M. anisopliae in the present field study may be attributed to differences in fungal strains, environmental conditions and field-level factors affecting fungal efficacy.

Increase in seed yield over control

The percentage increase in seed yield over the untreated control is presented in Table 4. All biopesticide treatments resulted in an increase in seed yield over the control, although the magnitude varied among treatments. In the pooled analysis, azadirachtin recorded the highest increase in seed yield over control (72.31%), followed by NSKE (70.91%) and L. lecanii (67.78%). Novel plus, B. bassiana and M. anisopliae recorded comparatively moderate increases, while custard apple leaf extract recorded the lowest increase among the biopesticide treatments.

Avoidable yield loss

The avoidable yield loss due to mustard aphid infestation under different biopesticide treatments is presented in Table 4. The pooled results showed that the highest avoidable yield loss was recorded with azadirachtin (41.96%), followed by NSKE (41.49%) and L. lecanii (40.40%). The corresponding values for Novel plus, B. bassiana and M. anisopliae were 32.06, 31.00 and 30.85%, respectively, whereas custard apple leaf extract recorded 18.02%. The higher avoidable yield loss associated with the more effective treatments indicates that effective suppression of mustard aphid can substantially protect the yield potential of mustard. Thus, the present findings demonstrate the importance of incorporating effective biopesticides into an integrated pest management programme against L. erysimi. The higher avoidable yield loss associated with effective treatments indicates the magnitude of yield that could be protected through effective management of mustard aphid.

Conclusion

The two-year field study demonstrated that biopesticides differed significantly in their effectiveness against mustard aphid, L. erysimi. Azadirachtin was significantly superior to NSKE and L. lecanii, whereas NSKE and L. lecanii were statistically at par with consistently lower aphid populations across both seasons. These treatments also resulted in higher seed yield, with azadirachtin recording the highest pooled yield (1600.00 kg/ha) and an increase in yield over control (72.31%). Thus, azadirachtin, NSKE and L. lecanii can be considered promising biopesticides for incorporation into an eco-friendly and sustainable integrated pest management programme against mustard aphid.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors gratefully acknowledge Navsari Agricultural University for providing the financial support required to conduct this research.

References

1. Dodiya RD, Barad AH. Effectiveness of biopesticides against Spodoptera litura infesting groundnut under field condition. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11(8):1601.
2. Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach) in different cultivars of Brassica juncea (L.) Czern & Coss. Crop Protection. 2022;161:106070.
3. Rahman MM. Status of oilseeds and prospects in Bangladesh. In: Review Workshop on the Impact of Technology Transfer on Oil Crops, BARI; 2002. p. 45-51.
4. Meena H, Singh SP, Nagar R. Evaluation of microbial agents and bio-products for the management of mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.). The Bioscan. 2013;8(3):747-750.
5. Khavse R, Singh R, Manikandan N, Chaudhar JL. Influence of temperature on rapeseed-mustard yield at selected locations in Chhattisgarh state. Current World Environment. 2014;9(3):1034-1036.
6. Anonymous. District-wise area, production and yield of important food & non-food crops in Gujarat state (Year: 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24). Directorate of Agriculture, Krishibhavan, Sector 10 A, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar; 2024. p. 110.
7. Bhowmik B, Mitra B, Bhadra K. Diversity of insect pollinators and their effect on the crop yield of Brassica juncea L., NPJ-93 from Southern West Bengal. International Journal of Recent Scientific Research. 2014;5(6):1207-1213.
8. Ecology, Environment and Conservation. 2016;23:75-83.
9. Dharavath N, Mehera B, Nath S, Patra SS, Rout S. Effect of different sowing dates and application of pesticides on growth and yield of mustard crop (Brassica juncea). International Journal of Pure and Applied Bioscience. 2017;5(1):178-187.
10. Dodiya RD, Barad AH, Italiya JV, Pathan NP, Bhatt NA. Host suitability of tobacco leaf eating caterpillar (Spodoptera litura F.) under laboratory condition. International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management. 2023;14(8):1186-1195.
11. Bakhetia DRC, Sekhon BS. Insect pests and their management in rapeseedmustard. Indian Society of Oilseeds Research. 1989;6(2):269-299.
12. Patel S, Singh CP, Yadav SK. Monitoring of insect-pest complex on rapeseedmustard at Pantnagar. Journal of Entomological Research. 2019;43(1):73-76.
13. Dodiya RD, Barad AH, Italiya JV, Prajapati HN. Impact of weather parameters on population dynamics of tobacco leaf eating caterpillar, Spodoptera litura (F.) infesting groundnut. Environ. Ecol. 2024;42:301-306.
14. Pal DS, Singh D, Gautam SP, Kumar A. Bio-rational management of mustard aphid (Lipaphis erysimi Kalt.). International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2020;8(2):25542557.
15. Singh YP, Sharma KC. Effect of sowing dates on the incidence of mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi Kaltenbach in mustard. Indian Journal of Entomology. 2009;23(2):120124.
16. Pradhan PP, Borkakati RN, Saikia DK. Bio-efficacy of certain entomopathogenic fungus against major insect pests of Brassica campestris var. Toria. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 2020;8(1):840-843.
17. Chaudhari SM, Shah KD, Pansara ZH, Talaviya JR, Rathod AR. Population dynamics of aphid, Lipaphis erysimi Kalt. infesting mustard. Frontiers in Crop Improvement. 2022;10(1):650-653.
18. Patel PK, Singh SK, Chandra U, Sharma KR, Rajak RK. Screening of rapeseedmustard germplasms against mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach). Journal of Entomological Research. 2024;48(2):203-208.
19. Khosla RK. Techniques of assessment of losses due to pests and disease of rice. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 1977;47(4):171-174.
20. Dodiya RD, Barad AH, Italiya JV. Efficacy of insecticides against Spodoptera litura (Fabricius) infesting groundnut (Arachis Hypogaea Linnaeus). Pesticide Research Journal. 2024;36(2):125-129.
21. Deka AC, Goswami NK, Sharma I. Biocontrol prospects of entomopathogenic fungi for management of mustard aphid (Lipaphis erysimi Kalt.) on rapeseedmustard. Advances in Applied Science Research. 2017;8(4):21-29.
22. Pradhan S, Jotwani MG, Sarup P. Control schedule for mustard crop, particularly against mustard aphid. Journal of Oilseeds Research. 1960;4:125-141.
23. Lal MN, Singh SS, Singh VP. Reaction of mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.) to morphological characters of mustard, Brassica juncea L. Journal of Entomological Research. 1999;23(3):221-223.
24. Mathur YK, Singh SV. Population dynamics of Myzus persicae Sulzer and Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.) on rapeseed mustard in Uttar Pradesh. Journal of Oilseeds Research. 1986;3:246-250.
25. Barad AH, Prajapati HN, Dodiya RD. Evaluation of different doses of insecticides against aphid, Macrosiphoniella sanborni and coccinellids in chrysanthemum crop ecosystem. The Pharma Innovation. 2023;12(6):2918-2923.
26. Steel RGD, Torrie JH. Principles and procedures of statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1980.
27. Prasad SK. Efficacy of some plant products vis-à-vis oxymeton methyl against Lipaphis erysimi on mustard under field conditions. Indian Journal of Entomology. 1997;59(2):147-150.
28. Kumar A, Yadav S, Kumar Y, Yadav J. Evaluation of different botanicals for the management of mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach). Journal of Oilseed Brassica. 2020;11(1):42-48.
29. Narendra Nagar (Kumarganj), Ayodhya: Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture & Technology; 2020. p. 67-72.
30. Arvind, Jat BL, Dalal P, Saini A, Kumawat S, Kaur L. Efficacy of biorationals against mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi Kalt. Journal of Biological Control. 2025;39(1):5461.
31. Janu A, Yadav GS, Kaushik HD, Jakhar P. Bioefficacy of Verticillium lecanii and Beauveria bassiana against mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi, under field conditions. Plant Archives. 2018;18(1):288-290.
32. Singh YP, Meghwal HP, Singh SP. Evaluation of bioagents against mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach) (Homoptera: Aphididae) under netcovered conditions in the field. Journal of Biological Control. 2008;22(2):321326.
33. Yadav S, Singh B. Eco-friendly management of aphid (Lipaphis erysimi Kalt.) in Indian mustard variety RB-50 under late sown conditions. Journal of Entomology and Zoological Studies. 2021;9(1):1882-1886.
34. Sajid M, Bashir NH, Batool Q, Munir I, Bilal M, Jamal MA, et al. in vitro evaluation of biopesticides (Beauveria bassiana, Metarhizium anisopliae, Bacillus thuringiensis) against mustard aphid Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.) (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 2017;5(6):331-335.
35. Dodiya RD, Patel PS, Pathan NP, Deb S. Temporal patterns of aphid infestations in coriander. Journal of Agriculture and Ecology. 2025;20:7783.https://doi.org/10.58628/JAE-2520-
36. Kumar S. Studies on the population dynamics of aphid (Lipaphis erysimi Kalt.) on Brassica genotypes and its management through biorational insecticides on Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.) [PhD thesis]. Kanpur: Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology; 2025. p. 88-107.
37. Aswitha C, Yadav U. Comparative efficacy of botanicals, imidacloprid and cow urine against mustard aphid (Lipaphis erysimi Kalt.) on mustard (Brassica juncea L.). The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2023;12(7):1275-1278.
38. Yadav S, Singh SP. Bio-intensive integrated management strategy for mustard aphid Lipaphis erysimi Kalt. (Homoptera: Aphididae). Journal of Applied and Natural Science. 2015;7(1):192-196.
39. Brassica species in a tropical environment. Journal of Pest Science. 2005;78:155-160.
40. Sharma D, Yadav S, Yadav S. Biointensive integrated management of Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.) (Homoptera: Aphididae) in Brassica spp. Journal of Applied and Natural Science. 2017;9(4):2132-2136.