Diagnosis of Arthoropod

Vice-Chancellor
CCS Haryana Agricultural University

HISAR- 125 004 (Haryana) India
FOREWORD
Every year, a large proportion of crop yields are lost due to the attack of insectpests, diseases, weeds and other pests like rodents, etc. Such losses are particularly high
in the developing countries. To determine what factors damaged the plants require investigative
approach combined with careful observation and ability to put all the pieces together to
reconstruct the event(s) that caused the damage. Accurate diagnosis must be made before
undertaking corrective action.
In diagnosing plant damage, a series of deductive steps can be followed to gather
information and clues from the complex and general situation down to specific, individual
plant or plant part. Thus, through the systematic diagnostic process of deduction and
elimination, the most probable cause of the plant damage can be determined. Pest
management decisions taken on the basis of incorrect identification of the causal agent of
the damage could result in pest control failures and economic loss.
Pest infestations often have adverse effect on yield. Therefore, it becomes essential
to accurately estimate the potential role of each agent in reducing yields so that based on
their incidence the potential losses could be predicted. The understanding of the mechanisms
which are involved in quantitative and qualitative crop losses could help in formulating
appropriate strategies to minimize them. It would help in identifying the economic status of
different pests. With the introduction of new technologies, pest situations are changing.
This is particularly visible in the case of GM crops. Some new pests are appearing and
those which were earlier classified as minor pests are becoming important. Based on
symptoms produced in the plants in response to insect feeding, we must be able to correctly
identify the pests involved and assess the damage inflicted by them so that necessary
measures for their management could be initiated in time.
It gives me immense pleasure that the Centre of Advanced Faculty Training (CAFT)
in the Department of Entomology has selected an appropriate topic Advances in diagnosis
of arthropod pests damage and assessment of losses for the advanced training course. I
hope this course would go a long way in creating deeper understanding among the participants
regarding the investigative approaches required for appropriate diagnosis of plant damage
and assessment of crop losses caused by insect-pests.
I have all appreciation for Dr. R.K. Saini, Professor and Head-cum-Director CAFT, Dr.
S.S. Sharma and Dr. K.K. Mrig, Course Coordinators, for planning and organizing this training
course and bringing out this compendium. I wish the programme all success.
(K. S. Khokhar)
Dean
College of Agriculture
MESSAGE
I have come to know that the Department of Entomology, CCS Haryana Agricultural
University, Hisar, under the auspices of Centre of Advanced Faculty Training (CAFT) is
organizing an Advanced Training Course on Advances in diagnosis of arthropod pests damage
and assessment of losses from September 6-26, 2011. Accurate diagnosis of pest damage
symptoms produced on the plants and reliable estimation of crop losses in relation to pest
attack are important scientific activities in pest management. Basic knowledge related to
types of damage symptoms produced in plants by different pests, symptoms produced in
plants due to non-living factors like soil conditions, temperature, hailstorms etc., and
methodology of precise estimation of crop loss is essential to address the problem properly.
The mechanisms responsible for quantitative and qualitative crop losses need to be understood
critically so as to identify the economic status of the factor responsible.
It is heartening to note that a compendium of lectures delivered during the training
course is being published in the form of a book, which, I hope, would prove quite useful to
the faculty, extension workers and students. I have all appreciation for Dr. R.K. Saini, Professor
and Head-cum-Director CAFT, Dr. S. S. Sharma and Dr. K. K. Mrig, Course Coordinators, for
planning and organizing this training course and bringing out this publication.
I wish all success to the organizers.
(Sucheta Khokhar)
Prof. & Head

Department of Entomology
PREFACE
A variety of symptoms are produced in plants in response to insect feeding. The situation
becomes complex when similar symptoms are produced on the same plant by completely different
factors. Therefore, accurate diagnosis of pest damage symptoms produced on the plants and
reliable estimation of crop losses in relation to pest attack are important scientific activities in
pest management that are aimed at increased understanding of the factors responsible for plant
damage and improved quantification of the effects of pests on crop growth and development. To
arrive at logical conclusions, one must understand the mechanics of insect-plant interactions
and how they affect crop yields. Efficient pest management depends on an accurate diagnosis of
the pest problem. The first requirement is to determine whether an insect observed on a crop
plant is a pest or not. Knowledge of insect mouthparts and the feeding mechanisms can greatly
help in arriving at right conclusions.
The present training course on Advances in diagnosis of arthropod pests damage and
assessment of losses was organized from September 6 to 26, 2011 with the objective of providing
update of the progress made in this field.
Important aspects covered during this course included some basic information related to
insect-plant loss interactions, common methods of crop loss assessment, types of damage
symptoms, cropwise diagnostic symptoms of pest damage and loss assessment, and damage
symptoms produced by agents other than insects. It also included miscellaneous chapters related
to other supportive fields such as agrimeteorology, computer applications remote sensing, etc.
Most of the lectures were contributed by the specialists from CCS Haryana Agricultural University,
Hisar. However, some of these were delivered by experts from Gujarat Agricultural University,
Sardar Krushi Nagar; Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi; S.K. Rajasthan Agricultural
University, Bikaner and Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. Twenty three participants
representing 11 SAUs attended this course.
The financial assistance from Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi
and help and cooperation received from different resource persons, faculty and staff of Department
of Entomology and other departments of the University who have been associated with this course
are gratefully acknowledged.
I am indeed indebted to worthy Vice-Chancellor, Prof. K. S. Khokhar, for the patronage,
support and encouragement given by him to this training programme.
I express deep sense of gratitude Prof. Sucheta Khokhar, Dean, College of Agriculture,
for her enormous help, guidance and interest. I owe my sincere thanks to Dr. R. P. Narwal,
Director of Research, for his cooperation and help. Support from members of various committees
engaged with this programme and the tireless efforts made by the Course Coordinators, Dr. K. K.
Mrig and Dr. S. S. Sharma is thankfully acknowledged. I hope this compendium will be of great
help to students, researchers, teachers and extension workers in understanding the aspects of
plant clinic and crop loss assessment.
(R. K. Saini)
CONTENTS
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
TITLE AND NAME

PLANT HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS AND LOSS ASSESSMENT: AN OVERVIEW
R. K. SAINI
INSECT' NOMENCLATURE, IDENTIFICATION, CLASSIFICATION AND THEIR
ROLE IN STRENGTHENING PEST DIAGNOSTICS
SUCHETA KHOKHAR
A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO DIAGNOSING PLANT DAMAGE
RAM SINGH
METHODS OF ESTIMATING CROP LOSSES DUE TO INSECT-PESTS
PALA RAM
SIGNIFICANCE OF INSECT PEST-LOSS RELATIONSHIPS
R. K. SAINI
PROCEDURE FOR COLLECTING PLANT AND INSECT SAMPLES FOR
PROBLEM DIAGNOSIS
K. K. MRIG AND S. S. SHARMA
INSECT SAMPLING FOR DECISION MAKING IN CROP LOSS ASSESSMENT
R. K. SAINI
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS AND ASSESSMENT OF LOSSES DUE TO
ARTHROPOD PESTS IN KHARIF VEGETABLES
S. S. SHARMA
DIAGNOSITIC SYMPTOMS AND ASSESSMENT OF LOSSES DUE TO
INSECT-PESTS IN WINTER VEGETABLES
P. C. SHARMA
WHITEGRUBS IN VARIOUS CROPS
SWAROOP SINGH
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS AND DAMAGE DUE TO INSECT-PESTS IN SOME
TROPICAL AND SUB-TROPICAL FRUIT CROPS
G. S. YADAV AND S. S. SHARMA
ARTHROPOD PESTS IN TROPICAL FRUIT CROPS INCLUDING SOME
PLANTATION CROPS
G. M. PATEL
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS AND LOSS ASSESSMENT DUE TO
INSECT-PESTS IN COTTON
K. K. DAHIYA
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS AND ASSESSMENT OF LOSSES DUE
TO INSECT-PESTS IN PADDY
LAKHI RAM
INSECT-PESTS IN PULSES
ROSHAN LAL
DIAGNOSIS AND CROP LOSS ASSESSMENT FOR ECONOMICALLY
IMPORTANT PLANT DISEASES
S. K. GANDHI
NEMATODE PESTS IN IMPORTANT CROPS
R. K. WALIA
1
6
14
22
26
32
38
47
51
56
60
65
72
75
78
83
88
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS OF MACRO AND MICRONUTRIENTS'

DEFICIENCY IN IMPORTANT CROPS
J. P. SINGH AND DEV RAJ
DIAGNOSTICS AND ASSESSMENT OF LOSSES DUE TO INSECT-PESTS
IN STORED DRY FRUITS
AJAY K. SOOD
INSECT- PESTS IN TEMPERATE FRUIT CROPS
P. K. MEHTA AND R. S. CHANDEL
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS AND LOSS ASSESSMENT DUE TO MITE
PESTS IN IMPORTANT CROPS
RACHNA GULATI
PREDICTING INSECT POPULATIONS USING MODELS
RAM NIWAS AND M. L. KHICHAR
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS AND LOSSES CAUSED BY MAJOR
ENEMIES TO HONEY BEES
S. K. SHARMA
ARTHROPOD PESTS IN CROPS
M. K. DHILLON
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS AND LOSS ASSESSMENT DUE
TO INSECT-PESTS IN FORAGE CROPS
S. P. SINGH
TO INSECT- PESTS IN POTATO
R. S. CHANDEL AND MANDEEP PATHANIA
INSECT-PESTS IN OILSEED CROPS
S. P. SINGH
INSECT-PESTS IN SPICES
YOGESH KUMAR
REMOTE SENSING AND ITS APPLICATION IN PEST DAMAGE DIAGNOSIS
RAMESH S. HOODA
USE OF ADVANCED COMPUTER TOOLS IN SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATIONS
A. K. CHHABRA
METHODOLOGY OF PESTICIDE RESIDUE ESTIMATION IN
VARIOUS FIELD CROPS
BEENA KUMARI
DIAGNOSTICS AND LOSS ASSESSMENT DUE TO INSECT-PESTS
IN SUGARCANE
SAROJ JAIPAL
INSECT-PESTS IN CEREAL CROPS
OMBIR
TO INSECT-PESTS IN STORED GRAINS
S. S. SHARMA
MOLECULAR MARKERS : CONCEPTS AND THEIR APPLICATIONS
IN ENTOMOLOGY
A. K. CHHABRA
INSECT-PESTS IN RABI VEGETABLES
S. S. SHARMA AND V. S. MALIK
95
105
110
114
121
129
135
141
145
149
153
158
165
171
179
186
190
196
207
PLANT HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS AND LOSS ASSESSMENT :

AN OVERVIEW
R. K. Saini
CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar
Plant health is affected by a number of living and non-living factors. Living factors include
insect-pests, mites, weeds, disease causing agents like fungi, bacteria, viruses, nematodes,
and other living organisms, while the non-living factors include environmental variables like
temperature, humidity, rainfall, hailstorms, winds, drought, sunshine and soil condition, etc.
To determine what factor(s) adversely affected plant requires investigative approach combined
with careful observation and ability to put all the pieces together to reconstruct the event(s)
that affected the plant. Accurate diagnosis must be made before corrective action can be
initiated. Similarities of symptoms produced on the same plant by completely different factors
frequently make the use of symptoms alone inadequate. Insects may harm the plants in
different ways such as damage caused due to feeding, oviposition or disease transmission.
However, diagnosis becomes easier if the insect causing damage is also observed and
identified.
Accurate pest management depends on an accurate diagnosis of the problem. The first
requirement is to determine whether an insect observed on a crop plant is a pest or not. The
type of mouthparts of an insect species and the manner of feeding on the host plant are both
important determinants of its pest status. Treatment without diagnosis, as in medicine, is a
malpractice. Despite this, diagnosis is often not given adequate attention. There are three
challenges to consider when embarking on plant diagnostics :
1. Some plant problems are very obvious, while others are very obscure.
2. Some plant problems will not be diagnosed with the first effort. In fact, some plant problems
may never be diagnosed.
3. Farmers usually want an immediate and clear cut answer which exert great pressure to
provide quick-draw and clear-cut diagnosis.
Typically, diagnostics is a process to come up with the best possible explanation of why
a good plant has gone wrong. An incorrect diagnosis will lead to an incorrect treatment. A
plant may be suffering from multiple problems, and the most obvious may not be most
significant. For arriving at a logical conclusion, one has to observe the problem from different
perspectives:
A. Knowing the plants : A good diagnostician must be able to understand the difference
between a normal and an abnormal plant, which could provide a great early perspective
in the diagnosis process. All plants have their own set of diseases and insect problems.
Knowing the plants and what family and genus do they belong, is a great starting point
for diagnostics.
B. Looking for abnormalities in the plants : Plant abnormalities are categorized in terms
of signs and symptoms. Signs are the actual causal agents. Symptoms result from
interaction between the plant and pests, pathogens, or environmental elements (e.g.
high soil pH). However, some symptoms may be produced by multiple causes. Twisted
leaves may be caused by sucking pests like leafhopper, thrips, or leafminer or exposure
to plant growth regulator herbicides. Similarly, tiny leaf spots can be caused by a leaf
spotting fungus or bacterium, or lace bugs and mites. Yellow leaves may be caused by
sucking pests or by nutrient deficiencies in the soil or by a soil pH that makes the
1
nutrients unavailable to the plants. Pattern of damage is characteristics of some particular

insect species which can be very helpful in diagnosis. Some of the major symptoms
produced in plants include chewed leaves or blossoms, e.g. defoliation, shot holes,
margins notched, skeletonization; discoloured leaves or blossoms eg. Stippling, streaking,
mining, yellowing; distorted leaves, branches, or trunks e.g. leaf cupping, leaf or twig
galling, bark cracking; dieback of shoots, twigs and branches e.g. shoot die-back, branch
dieback; products of insects e.g. honeydew and sooty mold, fecal spots, silk, protective
coverings, fluffy white wax, soft or hard white, brown, gray or black covers, etc. Therefore,
examine all plant parts closely and carefully.
C. Knowledge about plant site conditions and environmental history : Conditions
under which a plant is growing also affect plant growth and development. This may not
be confused with the stunted growth caused by sap sucking insects. Poorly drained soil
with poor internal aeration may result in death of plants. Acid loving plants often develop
yellowing between the veins (interveinal chlorosis) if growing in alkaline soils (pH above
7) due to iron deficiency.
Plant stress may also produce a progression of symptoms. There are two types of plant
stress: acute and chronic. Acute stress is caused by an immediate event, such as
feeding, drought, leaf defoliation, etc. Symptoms are usually immediately visible and
easy to diagnose. Chronic stress is caused by more subtle conditions such as site
problem or agronomical problem. How harsh have been the winters or summers need to
be known.
D. Knowledge of available diagnostic tools : Useful tools for diagnosis can be high
tech, ranging from elaborate microscope and enzyme linked immunosorbent assay tests
for virus and fungi in diagnostic labs to simpler tools e.g. soil probe (to check soil pH),
hand lens (10 X or 20X magnification), cutting tools (e.g. good sharp hand pruners and
knife), digging tools (to check girdling roots e.g. spade), recording tools (e.g. a field
note-book), a digital camera, a hand-held recorder, sampling equipment like specimen
tubes, plastic bags, etc.
E. Reporting of diagnosis and recommendations : Describe the symptoms observed
clearly and in detail. Identify the problem(s) you think these symptoms signify. After
making a diagnosis, it is important to put the suggested problem into proper perspective
relative to overall plant health. While recommending treatment for the problem, remember
that sometimes doing nothing is the best recommendation when the problem is of
minor importance. Most healthy herbaceous and woody plants can tolerate 20 to 30 per
cent leaf defoliation without suffering long-term damage or yield reduction. Secondly,
sometimes nothing can be done to make the plant recover. In such cases, often the best
recommendation is for timely removal and replacement of the plant. Knowledge of pest
life cycle and thereby crucial timing of initiating a control measure is very important. The
recommendations should be made within a range of proper expectations. Finally, the art
and science of professional plant diagnostics are often overlooked by those with instant
answers to every problem.
NEW TECHNOLOGIES
Use of computer based expert systems in pest diagnosis : Expert systems have
developed from a branch of computer science known as artificial intelligence. Artificial
intelligence is primarily concerned with knowledge representation, problem solving, learning,
robotics, and the development of computers that can speak and understand human like
languages. Thus, expert systems are computer programmes designed to mimic the thought
and reasoning processes of human expert.
2
Expert system can be developed for many kinds of applications involving diagnosis, prediction,
consultation, information retrieval, control, planning, interpretation and instruction.
In USA, computer based diagnostic systems for diseases, insect-pests and physiological
disorders are available. In citrus and selected tropical fruit crops, the TFRUIT.Xpert and
CIT.Xpert computer based diagnostic programmes can quickly assist commercial producers,
extension agents and homeowners in the diagnosis of diseases, insect-pest problems and
physiological disorders. The systems methodology reproduces the diagnostic reasoning
process of the experts. The diagnostic programme operates under Microsoft-Windows. Users
can also refer to summary documents and retrieve management information from the University
of Floridas Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences extension publications through
hypertext links. The programme are available separately on CD-ROM and each contains
over 150 digital colour images of symptoms.
Simulation models : Computer models can provide some theoretical explanations of
the effect of injurious or competitive organisms on crops. In general, computer models depend
on a few known variables that influence plant growth, development, and production. However,
in reality plants respond to damage or changes in the environment in a very complex manner.
Thus far, such complexity cannot be incorporated into the models to simulate an actual
situation. However, good simulations or computer models can improve the theoretical
understanding of the major effects of injuries or damages of pests on plants and their yield.
Imaging Technologies : New technologies and improvements to existing technologies
are constantly changing the way we view objects. With the proliferation of mobile computing
hardware and personal communications devices, for example, the possible development of
portable imaging systems is becoming more realistic. These changes are not just taking
place in the computing arena. Small, portable microscopes are now available that support
digital photomicrography and are still capable of providing the same levels of magnification
as their bench-top counterparts.
When photographs or image recordings from a tower, balloon, plane, or satellite are
available, they can give a useful indication of the area and intensity of dead or wilting plants
or leaves and differences in crop yield caused by pest attack. Remote sensing techniques
such as radar can automatically monitor the height, horizontal speed, direction, orientation,
body mass and the shape of arthropods intercepting the radar beam. It can provide information
of aerial migration of pests and natural enemies. It can be particularly useful for monitoring
locust swarms. Radar entomology was first used in 1968 and since then comprehensive and
intensive studies have been conducted in the UK, USA, Australia and China and it was
predicted that fully automatic, season long and real time monitoring will be feasible with the
vertical-looking radar (Zhai, 1999). Remote sensing technique relies on changes in the
absorbance or reflectance of plants in response to pest attack. An instrument sensitive to
specific wave lengths of radiation is used to detect such changes. Remote sensing in
conjunction with 3S technique can help in achieving three-dimensional real time visualization
of insect pest populations (Wang et al. , 2003).
Imagery provided by remote sensing satellites could be utilized in identifying pest affected
areas and intensity of pest damage. This could be particularly useful for pests which produce
visible symptoms of crop damage over large area e.g. hopper burn symptoms in paddy, blacking
of cotton leaves caused by sooty mould growing on honey dew secreted by aphid and whitefly,
etc. Similarly, satellite data have also been used to identify areas of vegetation capable of supporting
desert locusts. Further, such data can also find application in studying the effect of environmental
changes on build-up, long distance migration and flight behaviour of air-borne pests.
The Australian Centre for Remote Sensing (ACRES) has introduced a new service to
provide satellite data for real time application. The STAR (Speedy Transmission After
3
Reception) service provides access to digital satellite data on various aspects which includes
monitoring of pest infestations (Thankappan, 2001).
The difficulty, apart from clouds, is to be able to relate pest and crop events on the
ground to the pictures obtained.
The Distance Diagnostics through Digital Imaging project enhances the ability of the
University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service to evaluate and propose solutions for
agricultural problems, including plant diseases and pests, through the use of digital imaging
and the World Wide Web. Imaging stations consisting of computers, digital cameras,
microscopes and image-capture devices have been deployed in 94 county offices and in 3
diagnostic labs.
To date the Distance Diagnostics Through Digital Imaging System has exceeded
expectations. There is abundant documented evidence of instances where DDDI has facilitated
timely diagnosis or identification and intervention, preventing what could have potentially
been individually (within a particular field) catastrophic crop or personal losses. As system
use expands and familiarity increases, ever more utility seems to become evident.
Acoustic and other tools : Sensors which can detect the sounds of hidden insects like
wood borers, termites, stored grains pests, etc are finding applications in the advanced
countries. Similarly, portable X-Ray machines are being employed for detection of insects
attacking forest trees.
Electronic nose : In Oregan (USA), electronic devices programmed for detecting
particular odour or smell are being evaluated. One of these devices, Cyranose 3201, a portable
electronic nose, has shown good promise in determining stink bug damage by external
properties. The volatile compounds given off by sink bugs were identified and E-nose was
trained to identify stink bugs (presence) smell prints. There was a strong correlation (R2 =
0.95) between the number of stink bugs in a sample and the Cyranose sensors response
(Henderson et al., 2006).
CROP LOSS ASSESSMENT
Historical perspective : Zadoks (1981) identified three periods in the history of concern
about crop loss assessment : exploratory, emergency, and implementation. Zadoks and
Koster (1976) reported that German Korn in 1880 was the first to stress the importance of
using crop loss assessments for scientific and managerial purpose. Later on different
countries like Sweden, Netherland and Prussia began to assess losses. The worlds first
plant protection service started its work in the Netherland in 1899. The exploratory period
came to an end with the 1914 International Phytopathological Conference in Rome.
The periods of the two World Wars was the emergency period in which international
exchange of commodities was hampered. Such situation coupled with droughts and famine
caused food shortages resulting in loss of human life.
The implementation period was first initiated by the phytopathologist E.C. Large (1950)
in the United Kingdom. However, international interest on this aspect was stimulated by
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) symposium on crop losses held in 1967 in Rome,
which was organized by L. Chiarappa and J. Vallega (FAO, 1967).
Work on crop loss methodology was strengthened by two publications produced under
the aegis of FAO (Chiarappa, 1971, 1981).
Pest infestations often have adverse effect on yield. Therefore, it becomes essential to
accurately estimate the potential role of each agent in reducing yields so that based on their
incidence the potential losses could be predicted. The understanding of the mechanisms
which are involved in quantitative and qualitative crop losses could help in formulating
appropriate strategies to minimize them.
Basic crop loss terminology (after Zadoks, 1985)
Yield : A crops measurable economic production.
Injury : Any visible and measurable symptom caused by a harmful agent. The damage
function translates injury into damage.
Damage : Any reduction in quantity and/or quality of yield. The loss function translates
damage into loss.
Loss : The reduction in financial return per unit area due to harmful agents.
Therefore, the assessment of crop losses due to insect pests is of important from the
following points of view:
1. For proper planning of research. For example, if the mechanisms of crop yield are known,
research can be directed toward increasing yields by reducing the effect of pests on
yield and yield quality, increasing crop resistance to pests, reducing pest attack by
forecasting pest outbreaks.
2. For defining economic status of a pest species so that relative importance of different
pests can be ascertained.
3. For establishing economic threshold and economic injury levels.
4. For evaluating crop varieties for resistance to insect-pests.
SUGGESTED READING
Chiarappa, L. (ed.) 1971. Crop Loss Assessment Methods. FAO Manual on the Evaluation
and Prevention of Losses by Pests, Diseases and Weeds . Commonwealth Agricultural
Bureaux, Famham Royal, United Kingdom.
Chiarappa, L. (ed.) 1981. Crop Loss Assessment.Supplement 3. Commonwealth Agricultural
Bureaux, Famham Royal, United Kingdom.
Southwood T R E (1978). Ecological Methods, with particular reference to the Study of
Insect Populations . 2d ed. Chapman and Hall. London. 524 p.
Thankappan, M. 2001. Access to satellite data for time-critical applications STAR and
SPOTLITE. First Australian Geospatial Information and Agriculture Conference, Sydney,
Australia, July 17-19, 2001. pp. 497-506.
Wang, Z.J., Zhang, A.B. and Li, D.M. 2003. Applied approaches and progress in the use of
remote sensing techniques in insect ecology. Entomological Knowledge 40 (2) : 97-100.
Zhai, B.P. 1999. Tracking angels: 30 years of radar entomology. Acta Entomologica Sinica
42 (3) : 315-326.
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/nurserystartap/onnpdf/onn130601.pdf
http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/3000/pdf/pp401-02.pdf
http://www.clemson.edu/precisionag/stink bug.pdf
INSECT' NOMENCLATURE, IDENTIFICATION,

CLASSIFICATION AND THEIR
ROLE IN STRENGTHENING PEST DIAGNOSTICS
Sucheta Khokhar
Dean, College of Agriculture
CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125004, India
Amongst animals the insects are most dominant and diverse group on the earth, which
appeared 250 years ago. Insects are presumed to constitute about three-fourth of all living
animals on earth. They fill many niches in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; and a
good number of them are celebrated pests of agricultural, medical and veterinary importance.
Existing knowledge on insect biodiversity is poor and no one knows exactly how many
species of insects exist. Widely divergent estimates have been provided including up to 30
million species (Erwin, 1982), 12.5 million (Hammond, 1992) and 5-15 million (Stork, 1997)
and 1-1.5 million named and described species and countless species yet to be discovered
(most of text books).
No new order of insects has been identified since 1915. For the first time in 87 years
(Klass et al ., 2002), researchers have discovered an insect that constitutes a new Order of
insects. The discovery of the new insect Order by Entomologist, Oliver Zompro, from Germany
has been named Mantophasmatodea, which increases the number of insect orders to 31.
Zompro noted that it resembles a cross between a stick insect, a mantid, and a grasshopper,
nomenclatured Mantophasma zephyrum from Namibia (Fig. 1 & 2). The species is commonly
known as Gladiators, Heelwalkers, Rock Crawlers or mantophasmids.
Fig. 1 & 2. Adult, Mantophasma zephyra Zompro & Adis
Members of the order are wingless and carnivorous even as adults, making them relatively
difficult to identify. These creatures are inconspicuous, about 14 cm (0.41.6 in.) long, is
carnivorous and nocturnal. It lives at the base of clumps of grass that in rock crevices.
Still many species are to be recorded / discovered. But many established species are
either already become extinct or at the verge of extinction or qualified as endangered (Table
1) as per IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) and more information can be
collected from the Red list page - http://www.iucnredlist.org/ so that they can be protected.
6
Table 1. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Status Categories

Extinct
Species not definitely located in the wild during the past 50 years.
Endangered
Taxa in danger of extinction and whose survival is unlikely if the

causal factors continue operating.
Vulnerable
Taxa believed likely to move into the Endangered category in the

near future if the causal factors continue operating.
Rare
Taxa with small world populations that are not at present Endangered
or Vulnerable, but are at risk.
Indeterminate
Taxa known to be Endangered, Vulnerable, or Rare but where

there is not enough information to say which of the three categories
is appropriate.
Significant progress has been made in the field of taxonomy and biology as well as in
Insects control. Correct identification of an insect, its systematic position and knowledge of
its relationships with other species are of paramount importance in insect control. The role
of nomenclature is to provide labels or names for the taxonomic categories in order to facilitate
communication among biologists. The name of an animal should be such that it should
provide instantly the known information about the particular taxon. Every name has to be
unique because it is the key to the entire literature relating to this species or higher taxon.
If several names have been given to the same taxon, normally priority decides the validity of
the same. Henceforth, the valid rules of zoological nomenclature are contained in an
authoritative document entitled, International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The
preamble of the code (ICZN) says, The object of the code is to promote stability and
universality in the scientific names of animals and to ensure that each name is unique,
widespread, universal, stable and distinct. Nomenclature thus is the language of zoology
and rules of nomenclature are its grammar. It is essential that the general principles of
zoological nomenclature be familiar to all zoologists, whether they are systematists or
involved in applied fields of the entomology.
Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated
from other such groups. Cryptic/Sibling Species: Pairs or groups of closely related species
which are reproductively isolated but morphologically identical or nearly so. Conspecific: A
term applied to individuals or populations of the same species. Semispecies: The component
species of superspecies; populations that have acquired same, but not yet all, attributes of
species rank i.e. borderline cases between species and sub species. Superspecies: A
superspecies is a monophyletic group of closely related and largely or entirely allopatric
species. The validity of the name of a taxon is governed by Law of Priority which says that
the oldest available name applied to it is the valid, provided the name is not invalidated by
any provision of the code or has not been suppressed by the Commission. The main limitation
is that a name that has remained unused as a senior synonym in the literature for more than
fifty years is to be considered a forgotten name i.e. nomen oblitum. A single specimen
designated or indicated as the the type by the original author at the time of the publication
of the original description is known as the Holotype and rest of the specimens of the type
series are called as Paratypes. In nomenclature, when one of two or more identical but
independently proposed names for the same or different taxa are available, called homonyms.
7
The junior homonym is always rejected and replaced by another name. While each of two or
more different independently proposed names for the same taxon are known as synonyms
constituting the chronological list of the scientific names which have been applied to a given
taxon, including the dates of publication and the authors of the names.
The scientific names species and subspecies are usually adjectives and expressed as
binomial and trinomial, respectively. These are always printed in italics if written or typewritten they are under scored. The scientific names are followed by the name of the author
i.e. describer of the species or subspecies which is not italicized e.g. Papilio ajax Linnaeus.
If the authors name is in parenthesis it means that the author described under one genus
initially i.e. Heliothis but later on it was shifted to another genus i.e. Helicoverpa . Similarly,
author of the species may be written by full name and may not be abbreviated to mere first
letter or few letters of the name. And if year is to be incorporated with scientific name of a
species then a comma is always used in between the authors name and year e.g. Hemilea
bipars Hardy, 1959. But this type of citation is optional and may be expressed completely
once in the text of any manuscript and subsequently genus can be donated by first capital
letter following by species name e.g. H. armigera. The species name should always be
written with its respective genus but if author is not sure about the identity of species or he
is to indicate more than one species under a genus he may express as Papilio sp. or Papilio
spp., respectively. The species may be named after a countrys name or geographical
distribution, the ending will be ana (e.g. americana ) or-ensis (e.g. hisarensi s). If named
after person/s the word will end with ilorum e.g. flecheri (man); smithorum (men), flecherae
(woman); smitharum (women). A number or numerical adjective or adverb forming a part of a
compound name is to be written in full as a word and united with remainder of the name e.g.
septumpunctata , not 7-punctata .
Care must be taken in citation of the common names of insects in the text. Most common
names of insects refer to large groups such as subfamilies, families suborders or orders
rather than to individual species e.g. the name tortoise beetle refers to the species in the
subfamily Cassinae of the family Chrysomelidae; and the term beetle refers to the entire
Coleoptera or thrips to whole Thysanoptera. The names fly and bug are used for insects
in more than one order and when fly of an insects name is written separately like black fly,
horse fly etc. they all belong to the order Diptera and are often spoken as the true flies. But
when the fly is written together with the descriptive word e.g. scorpionfly, sawfly, stonefly
or dragonfly, the insect belongs to some order other than Diptera i.e. they belong to orders
Mecoptera, Hymenoptera, Plecoptera and Odonata, respectively. Henceforth, the true bugs
of order Hemiptera are named with bug as a separate word damsel bug, stink bug or water
bug while for insects in other orders the bug of the name is written together with the
descriptive word e.g. mealybug, sowbug or ladybug. Snodgrass (1956) stated a rule to express
common names of insects, If the insect is what its name implies, write the two component
words separately otherwise run them together. The aphislion is not a lion, silverfish is not a
fish and honey bee is pre-eminently a bee which produces honey should always be written
as honey bee and not honeybee.
The economic importance of the insects puts increasing pressure on the taxonomists
for identification and classification. Taxonomy or systematics is the science of classification
of organisms. Classification is the arrangement of the individuals into groups and groups
into a system in which the data about the kinds determine their position in the system and
8
thereafter reflecting their position. Both taxonomy and classification and the other aspects
dealing with kinds of organisms and the data accumulated about them, are included in
systematics, which is the general term that covers all aspects of the study of kinds. Therefore,
Systematics, which is derived from Latinized Greek word systema used by Linnaeus deals
with the study of the kinds and diversity of organisms, their distinction, classification and
evolution. Nevertheless, in actual practice it is rather difficult to completely dissociate each
of these under discrete compartments. These three terms have been used alternately on the
same subject by various workers.
For using all the information in the action programmes (IPM etc.), the taxonomist acts
as a catalyst who allows the control of the pests through manipulation of their various attributes
as well as in the management of our environment in the cheapest and more successful way.
Biosystematics thus provides the basic tools for characterizing the entities that we study,
the species of organisms. Classifications: is the ordering of organisms into groups on the
basis of their relationships, that is, of their associations by contiguity, similarity or both.
Taxonomy: is the theoretical study of classification, including its bases, principles,
procedures and rules. Taxonomy, like classification, has also been used to designate the
end products of the taxonomic process. Systematics, in other words, is used to understand
the evolutionary history of life on Earth. All these terms are often used interchangeably. The
process of classification is totally different from that of identification . In classification we
undertake the ordering of populations and group of populations at all levels by inductive
procedures; in identification we place individuals by deductive procedures into previously
classes. For the identification of an insect, any of the six ways may be adopted i.e. (1) to
get specimen identified by an expert, (2) by comparing it with labeled specimens in a
collection, (3) by comparing it with images and illustrations, (4) by comparing it with
descriptions, (5) by the use of an analytical key, (6) by a combination of two or more of
these procedures. Of these, first two methods may not always be available. Similarly,
illustrations, etc. may not be included with description of an organism, and the best procedure
is to use the suitable key.
Biological systematics or Biosystematics is the science through which life forms are
discovered, identified, described, named, classified and catalogued, with their diversity, life
histories, living habits, roles in an ecosystem, and spatial and geographical distributions
recorded.
In recent years a taxonomist is not only to describe, identify and arrange organisms in
convenient categories but also to understand their evolutionary histories and mechanisms.
The systematics/ taxonomic studies involves a series of characters which can be grouped
as: (1) Morphological characters, general external morphology, special structures (e.g.
genitalia), internal morphology, embryology, karyology (and other cytological differences);
(2) Physiology characters, metabolic factors, serological, protein and other biological
differences, body secretions, gene sterility factors; (3) Ecological characters, habitats and
hosts; (4) food, seasonal variations, parasites, host reactions; (5) Ethological characters,
courtship and other ethological isolation, other behaviors patterns; and (6) Molecular genetic
characters, isozymes, nucleic acid sequences, gene expression and regulation. The
informations gathered on these aspects provide better basis for understanding an organism
and relationship with the environment as well as other organisms.
The biological classification may belong to any of the types viz ., (1) Phenatic
classification: The taxa are classified either on the basis of few characters or overall
characteristics, without direct reference to phylogeny; (2) Natural classification: The
classification is based on the natural characters of taxa. In this system of classification, the
organisms are placed into as many as groups and sub groups as are in similarities and
dissimilarities; (3) Cladistic or Phylogenetic Classification: Cladistic classification is
exclusively based on phylogenetic branching. It includes an attempt to map the sequence of
phyletic branching through a determination of characters that are shared primitive
(plesiomorphic) and that are shared-derived (apomorphic); (4) Envolutionary classification:
It is based on the evolutionary relationship of organisms, not just their phylogeny. This
classification provides foundations of all comparative studies in biology through the degree
of genetic similarity existing between organisms and the phylogenetic sequence of events
in their history; and (5) Omnispective Classification: All the readily available features of
the organisms are considered but only those are used for classification purpose which are
helpful in establishing groupings and distinctions. This is currently used as majority of the
taxonomists.
A hierarchy is a systematic frame work for zoological classification with a sequence of
classes at different levels in which each class except the lowest includes one or more
subordinate classes. An hierarchy does involve principles of priority and to the extent that
these principles are derived from real or natural relationships among organisms hierarchic
classification is natural. About 18 categories are recognized in the hierarchy of classification
of an organism (Mayr et al .,1953) e.g. Kingdom, Phylum, Subphylum, Class, Subclass,
Cohort, Superorder, Order, Suborder, Infraorder, Superfamily, Family, Subfamily, Tribe, Genus,
Subgenus, Species, Subspecies. The name of some systematic categories like family group
of an insect have standard endings and hence can always be recognized as referring to a
particular sort of group e.g. superfamily names end in-oidea , family names as idea,
subfamily as -inae and tribe ini (e.g. Pentatomoidea, Pentatomidae, Pentatominae &
Pentatomini).
A key is a systematic framework for zoological classification (generally used for
identification to the exclusion of other purposes) with a sequence of classes at each level of
which more restricted classes are formed by overlap of two or more classes at the next
higher level. A key involves no principle of priority and has a purely arbitrary conventional
sequence keys are universally considered artificial. There are many types of Keys, namely,
Indented keys, Tabulated keys, Dichotomous bracket keys/ simple non- bracket key,
Pictorial keys, Circular keys, Box-type keys. Most of taxonomic literature or text books
refer to dichotomous/analytical keys. The characters of an organism are expressed in
couplets which are numbered 1 and 1 2 and 2 and so on. Thus, each step leads to another
step and it alternatives, until a name is reached. Ones success in running an insect through
a key depends largely on an understanding of the characters used.
The keys, which have been constructed in majority of the text books, for the identification
of agriculturally important insects belonging to different orders, generally include the following
diagnostic characters :
1. Collembola : Body shape (elongate or globular); antennal length (longer or shorter than
head); abdominal segmentation (distinct or indistinct); length of furcula (mucro short or
long).
10
2. Odonata : Head shape (transversely elongated or not), size of eyes (large & often
contiguous dorsally or small & widely separated); shape of fore and hind wings (hind
wings wider at base or both pairs petiolated at base); position of wings at repose (held
horizontal on sides of body or held together above body); distinct wing venation with
nodus (beyond or before mid-length of wing) and stigma (small or elongated or absent or
abnormal); body shape of naiad (robust or delicate); gills of naiads (concealed rectal
gills or differently shaped and sized caudal gills).
3. Dermaptera : Eyes (well developed or absent); wings (present or apterous); cerci
(sclerolized forcepslike or not horny, may be delicate or hairy); shape and size of IItarsal segment (cylindrical or lobed beneath or heart-shaped).
4. Isoptera : Fontanelle (present or absent) in all castes; shape and size of pronotum of
workers and soldiers (saddle-shaped or flat, with or without anterior lobe, narrower or
broader than head); reticulation of wings (often reticulate or slightly reticulate); lobe of
hind wings (well developed or absent); tarsi (5- or 4- segmented).
5. Orthoptera : Body (elongate or thickset); antennal length and modifications (about as
long or longer/shorter than body, filiform/clavate/serrate/pectinate); wings (fully developed
or brachypterous or apterous) fore wings (tegmen type or vestigial); stridulatory apparatus
(present or absent); fore and hind legs (modified or normal); tarsal segments (1 to 4segmented); tympanal organ (present on fore tibiae/at base of abdomen or absent);
empodium (present or absent); pronotum (normal or extended backwards to cover
abdomen); ovipositor well developed (elongated, leaf-like/needle-like or short);
unsegmented cerci (small or elongated).
6. Hemiptera : Habitat (aquatic, semiaquatic or terrestrial); head constricted behind eyes
or not constricted; antennae 4-or 5-segmented, antennal length (as long as or longer/
shorter than head), antennae exposed or concealed in cavities, ocelli present (paired) or
absent; labium 1 to 4- segmented; membrane of hemelytra (distinct or indistinct), when
distinct, with five/less veins or many veins; corium entire or divided into cuneus and/or
embolium, fore legs (simple or raptorial); tibiae (spinose or not); tarsi 2- or 3- segmented;
scutellum small or large; connexivia of abdominal tergites (upto 6 or 7 segments) visible.
7. Homoptera : All body tagmata (well developed and distinct or degenerated structurally);
antennae small or long (concealed or exposed), arising on sides of head or on frons of
head; ocelli (2 / 3 or none); pronotum extending backward or not, over abdomen; legs
(simple or modified); tarsi 1 or 2- segmented, (with single or paired claws); wings well
developed or apterous; fore wings when present opaque or transparent, covered or not
covered with whitish powder, hind wings as large as or much smaller than fore wings,
forewing with numerous or few veins, RS present or absent; cornicles (present or absent);
all females oviparous or only sexual females oviparous and parthenogenetic females
viviparous.
8. Neuroptera : Body and wing (densely hairy or not) antennae variably modified (filiform,
moniliform, pectinnate or clavate), antennal length (as long as head and thorax together
or longer than body); ocelli (present or absent); prothorax (normal or elongate); fore legs
raptorial or normal; wing venation reduced or more complete, hind wings equal to fore
11
wings (in length and width) or greatly elongated and ribbon-like, cross-veins in both
pairs of wings (numerous or few).
9. Lepidoptera : Mandibles (functional or non-functional);lacinia of adults (well developed
or not), galeae (haustellate or not); antennae variously modified (clavate, setaceous,
pectinate, bipectinate, filiform etc.); wing-coupling apparatus (present or absent), wings
(broad with well-developed venation or wings narrow or cleft into plumes with or without
venation or reduced venation); tympanal organ (present or absent), when present may be
in metathorax or abdomen; tibial spurs (present or absent); female (with 1 or 2 genital
openings).
10. Diptera : Ocelli(3) present, may be absent or indistinct; antennae (short or elongated),
variously modified (aristate, setaceous, plumose, pilose, stylate etc.);mandibles either
absent or modified as stylets in adults; thorax with or without v-shaped suture on
mesonotum; wing venation of fore wings (variable).
11. Hymenoptera : Abdominal attachment with thorax (broad or constricted); antennae
insertion (below eyes and below apparent clypeus or between eyes, well above the
clypeus); flageller length (very long or not abnormally long); hind margin of pronotum
(almost straight or deeply emerginate behind); wings (well developed or absent or may
be very rudimentary), wings when present with distinct venation and closed cells, fore
wings (with or without distinct pterosigma); hind femur (with or without trochantellus).
12. Coleoptera : Habitat (terrestrial or aquatic); clypeus extending or not, laterally in front
of antennal insertions; eyes not divided or completely divided into dorsal and ventral
parts; antennae variously modified (filiform, moniliform, setaceous, pectinate, serrate,
lamellate etc.); metasternum (with or without groove); shape of fore coxae (conical or
spherical), hind coxae (immovably fixed or not immovable fixed to metasternum, dividing
or not dividing the first visible abdominal sternite).
Hence it may be concluded that the first step while underlying any scientific work
pertaining to an insect pest is to know its correct identity and systematic position. When it
is correctly identified, the available information on the biology and habits of that insect, its
most vulnerable stage, the appropriate time and the most suitable method or methods to
control it can be referred to. The knowledge and understanding of the ecological facts, both
biotic and abiotic, influencing the population of an insect pest are necessary for planning
the proper strategy for controlling the pest.
No scientific programme like IPM or ecological surveys etc. could be carried out without
the most painstaking identification of all species of economic significance. Even the
experimental biologists have learnt to appreciate the necessity of sound and solid
identification. There are great numbers of genera with two, three or more very similar species.
The information on the systematic position, morphology, physiology, genetics and types of
development of insects together with the due consideration of their classification and biologies
is essential for an entomologist to apply the appropriate control measure. It is impossible to
speak of any taxon under consideration of any study or to think lucidly about it unless it is
named. Even the enforcement of the conservation laws, a knowledge of the species involved
must be had.
12
A mistake in the identity of the host may result in the complete loss of years of work and
large amounts of money. For instance, a pest of oriental origin is mis-identified as a closely
related to European species, the search for natural enemies in Europe and their collection,
rearing and colonization for biological control, might prove utterly futile. Due to the
misidentification of cassava mealybug ( Phenacoccus manthoti) in Africa the parasitoids
collected from wrong host species were unable to breed on the pest species, resulted in
heavy loss of money and delay in the implementation and success of the proper control
programme against the same species of mealybug (Norgaard, 1988).
SUGGESTED READING
Erwin, T. 1982. Tropical forests: their richness in Coleoptera and other arthropod species.
Coleopterists Bull . 36 : 74-75.
Danks, H.V. 1988. Systematics in support of Entomology. Ann. Rev. Ent. 33 : 271-296.
Hammond, P. 1992. Species inventory. pp. 17-39. In : B. Groombridge (ed.) Global
Biodiversity: Status of the Earths Living Resources . Chapman and Hall London.
Klass, K.D., Zompro, O., Kristensen, N.P. and Adis, J.2002.Mantophasmatodea: A New
Order with Extant Members in Afrotropics. Science 296 , 1456.
Mayr, E. ; Linsley, E.G. and Usinger, R.L. 1953. Methods and Principles of Systematic
Zoology. Mcgraw Hill, New York, 328 pp.
Norgaard, R.B. 1988. The biocontrol of cassava mealybug in Africa. American J. Agri.Econ.
10 : 366-371.
Sailor, R.I. 1969. A taxonomists view point of environmental research and habitat
manipulation. Proc. Tall. Timbers Conference on Ecological Animal Control by habitat
management No.1. Published by Tall Timbers Res. Station, Tallahasse, Florida.
Snodgrass, R.E. 1956. The Anatomy of the Honey Bee. Cornell University Press; Ithaca,
New York, 70 pp.
Stork, N.E. 1991. The composition of the arthropod fauna of Bornean lowland rainforest
trees. J. Trop. Ecol . 7 : 161-180.
13
A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO DIAGNOSING

PLANT DAMAGE
Ram Singh
Department of Entomology,
Precise diagnosis must be made before corrective action can be taken. Probability of
correct diagnosis based on only one or two clues or symptoms is low. Similarities of symptoms
produced on the same plant by completely different factors frequently make the use of
symptoms alone inadequate.
Factors causing plant damage can be grouped into two major categories :
Living factors: living organisms such as pathogens (fungi, bacteria, viruses, nematodes)
and pests (insects, mites, mollusks, rodents...).
Nonliving factors: mechanical factors (i.e. breakage, abrasions, etc); physical,
environmental factors (extremes of temperature, light, moisture, oxygen, lightning); and,
chemical factors (chemical phytotoxicities, nutritional disorders, etc).
I.
DEFINE THE PROBLEM

A. Plant identification and characteristics. Establish what the normal plant would
look like at this time of year. Describe the abnormality: Symptoms & Signs.
B. Examine the entire plant and its community. Determine the primary problem and
part of the plant where initial damage occurred.
II. LOOK FOR PATTERNS: On more than one plant? On more than one plant species?
A. Non-uniform damage pattern-(scattered damage on one or only a few plant species)
is indicative of living factors (pathogens, insects, etc.).
B. Uniform damage pattern over a large area (i.e. damage patterns on several plant
species) and uniform pattern on the individual plant and plant parts indicates nonliving
factors (mechanical, physical, or chemical factors).
III. DELINEATE TIME-DEVELOPMENT OF DAMAGE PATTERN :
A. Progressive spread of the damage on a plant, onto other plants, or over an area with
time indicates damage caused by living organisms.
B. Damage occurs, does not spread to other plants or parts of the affected plant.
Clear line of demarcation between damaged and undamaged tissues. These clues
indicate nonliving damaging factors.
IV. DETERMINE CAUSES OF THE PLANT DAMAGE :
A. Distinguish among living factors
1. Symptoms and signs of PATHOGENS.
2. Symptoms and signs of INSECTS, MITES, and other ANIMALS.
B. Distinguish among nonliving factors
1. MECHANICAL FACTORS
14
2. PHYSICAL FACTORS
a. Temperature extremes
b. Light extremes
c . Oxygen and moisture extremes
3. CHEMICAL FACTORS
a. Analyze damage patterns in fields and other plantings.
b. Injury patterns on individual plants.
c . Pesticide-pollutant phytotoxicities damage patterns.
d. Nutritional disorders -key to nutritional disorders.
If we suspect that it is a living damaging factor, we will look for signs and symptoms to
distinguish between pathogens and insects. If the accumulated evidence suggests that it is
a pathogen, we will seek evidence to distinguish among fungal, bacterial, viral pathogens
and nematodes. If the evidence indicates the damaging factor is an insect or other animal,
we will seek further evidence to distinguish between sucking and chewing types.
If evidence indicates that the damage is being caused by a nonliving factor, we will
seek further evidence as to whether the initial damage is occurring in the root or aerial
environment. We will then attempt to determine if the damage results from MECHANICAL
FACTORS, from extremes in PHYSICAL FACTORS ( i.e. environmental factors such as
extremes of temperature, light, moisture, oxygen), or from CHEMICAL FACTORS (i.e.
phytotoxic chemicals or nutritional
disorders). Once we have identified the
plant and limited the range of probable
causes of the damage, we can obtain
further information to confirm our
diagnosis from reference books,
specialists such as plant pathologists,
entomologists, horticulturists, and/or
laboratory analyses.
SYMPTOMS AND SIGNS OF INSECTS,
MITES AND OTHER ANIMALS
INSECTS
The location of the feeding damage
on the plant caused by the insects
feeding, and the type of damage
(damage from chewing or from sucking
mouth parts) are the most important
clues in determining that the plant
damage is insect-caused and in
identifying the responsible insect
(Fig.1).
FEEDING HABITS
Chewing insects eat plant tissue
such as leaves, flowers, buds, and
twigs. Indications of damage by these
Fig.1. Plant infested by a variety of insects
15
insects is often seen by uneven or broken margins on the leaves, skeletonization of the
leaves, and leaf mining. Chewing insects can be beetle adults or larvae, moth larvae
(caterpillars), and many other groups of insects. The damage they cause (leaf notching, leaf
mining, leaf skeletonizing, etc.) will help in identifying the pest insect.
Injury by Chewing Insects
Perhaps the best way to gain an idea of the prevalence of this type of insect damage is
to try to find leaves of plants with no sign of insect chewing injury. Armyworms, grasshoppers,
hairy caterpillars, beetles are common examples of insects that cause chewing injury.
Chewing Damage or Rasping Damage:
Entire leaf blade consumed by various caterpillars, canker worms, and webworms. Only
tougher midvein remains.
Distinct portions of leaf missing.
Leaf surfaces damaged: Skeletonization of leaf surface. Slugs, beetle larvae, pearslug
(pear sawfly larvae), elm leaf beetle, and thrips.
Leaves rolled: Leaves that are tied together with silken threads or rolled into a tube
often harbor leafrollers or leaftiers, i.e. omnivorous leaftier.
Leaf miners feed between the upper and lower leaf surfaces. If the leaf is held up to the
light, one can see either the insect or frass in the damaged area (discolored or swollen
leaf tissue area), i.e. citrus leafminer, pea leaf miners.
Petiole and leaf stalk borers burrow into the petiole near the blade or near the base of
the leaf. Tissues are weakened and leaf falls in early summer.
Twig girdlers and pruners, i.e. vine weevil and twig girdling beetle.
Borers feed under the bark in the cambium tissue or in the solid wood or xylem tissue.
Damage is often recognized by a general decline of the plant or a specific branch. Close
examination will often reveal the presence of holes in the bark, accumulation of frass or
sawdust-like material or pitch, i.e. mango stem borer.
Root feeders, larval stages of weevils, beetles and moths cause general decline of plant,
chewed areas of roots, i.e. root weevil, white grubs.
Feed on the growing points or plants and thus retard the growth as in the case of the
grapevine flea beetle Scelodonta strigicollis.
Feed on the leaves and defoliate the plants causing reduction in assimilative leaf area
and thus hinder growth. The semilooper caterpillar on castor, the red hairy caterpillar on
groundnut, and the slug caterpillar on mango and castor are some examples.
Make small holes in the leaves by feeding. The flea beetle on radish and sunnhemp
cause this type of damage.
Feed on a layer of surface tissue of leaf (e.g. larvae of the diamond back moth on cabbage
and cauliflower) or superficially on the surface tissue (e.g. grubs and adults of the beetles
Epilachna spp. on brinjal and bittergourd).
Leaves riddled with large holes of irregular shape and size due to feeding (e.g. cabbage
semilooper Trichoplusia ni).
16
Roll up the leaves and feed within as in the larvae of Sylepta derogata and S. lunalis on
cotton and grapevine, respectively.
The larvae feed on the bark of the plants or trees living concealed in a protective covering
of frass and excreta in a silken web as in the case of the bark caterpillar lndarbela
tetraonis on moringa, curry leaf, rain tree etc.
Cut the stem of tender plants at the time of germination. The surface weevil Attactogaster
finitimus attacks similarly the seedlings of cotton raised under the rainfed conditions in
the black soil tract of TirunelveIi district in South India.
Feed on the flower buds and flowers and cause reduction in production. The larvae of
Maruca testulalis web the flower buds and flowers on redgram and feed on them. The
adults of the blister beetle on red gram and sesbania and cetoniid beetle on rose feed on
the flower buds and petals.
Nibble and cut off ear heads as in the case of rice grasshoppers.
Eat partially on the grains and give chalky appearance as in the case of the damage inflicted
by the larvae of Helicoverpa armigera to the ears of sorghum and finger-millet (ragi).
Sucking insects insert their beak (proboscis) into the tissues of leaves, twigs, branches,
flowers, or fruit and then feed on the plants juices. Some examples of sucking insects are
aphids, mealy bugs, thrips, and leafhoppers. Damage caused by these pests is often indicated
by discoloration, drooping, wilting, leaf spots (stippling), honeydew, or general lack of vigor
in the affected plant
Injury by Piercing-Sucking Insects
Another important method which insects use to feed on plants is piercing the epidermis
(skin) and sucking sap from cells. Aphids, scale insects, squash bugs, leafhoppers and
plant bugs are examples of piercing-sucking insects.
Sucking Damage
In addition to direct mechanical damage from feeding, some phloem-feeding insects
cause damage by injecting toxic substances when feeding. This can cause symptoms which
range from simple stippling of the leaves to extensive disruption of the entire plant. Insect
species which secrete phytotoxic substances are called toxigenic (toxin-producing) insects.
The resulting plant damage is called phytotoxemia or toxemia.
Spotting or Stippling result from little diffusion of the toxin and localized destruction of
the chlorophyll by the injected enzymes at the feeding site. Aphids, leafhoppers, and lygus
bugs are commonly associated with this type of injury.
Leaf curling or Puckering More severe toxemias such as tissue malformations develop
when toxic saliva causes the leaf to curl and pucker around the insect. Severe aphid
infestations may cause this type of damage.
Systemic Toxemia In some cases the toxic effects from toxigenic insect feeding
spread throughout the plant resulting in reduced growth and chlorosis. Psyllid yellows of
potatoes and tomatoes and scale and mealy bug infestations may cause systemic toxemia.
Most sucking insects attack the leaves of plants. A general chlorosis is caused by
aphids and many of them cause ultimate withering and drying of the affected portions.
17
Faint yellow speckling of leaves may be produced due to feeding as in the case of the
castor whitefly and the coconut scale.
Silvering or whitening of leaf surface due to removal of cell contents below the epidermis
is the typical damage caused by thrips on crops like onion, groundnut, etc. White feeding
spots are caused by tingid bugs like Stephanitis typicus on coconut and banana.
Hopper burn or necrotic brown lesion is the typical injury produced by leafhoppers e.g.,
the cotton, castor leaf hoppers and white-backed plant hopper in paddy.
Crinkling or curling of leaves is caused by insects like aphids, thrips and leafhoppers.
Distortion of foliage and clustering of terminal shoots as in mealybug infestation on
tender shoots of Gliricidia maculata.
Proliferation of tissue around the site of feeding is sometimes produced e.g., whitefly
Bemisia tabaci infestation on Achyranthes aspera.
Premature shedding of developing fruits or drying of shoots as in scales and mealy bugs
e.g., the San Jose scale on apple, the rose scale, etc.
Premature fall of fruits as in citrus caused by the fruit sucking moths which pierce the
rind of fruits.
General (uniform) stipple or flecking or chlorotic pattern on leaf i.e. adelgid damage on
spruce needles and bronzing by lace bugs.
Random stipple pattern on leaf, i.e. leafhoppers, mites.
Leaf and stem distortion associated with off-color foliage = aphids (distortion often
confused with growth regulator injury), i.e. rose aphid, black cherry aphid, leaf curl plum
aphid.
Galls, swellings on leaf and stem tissue may be caused by an assortment of insects,
i.e. aphids, wasps, midge, mossyrose gall wasp, poplar petiole gall midge, azalea leaf
gall.
Damaged twigs = split: Damage resembling split by some sharp instrument is due to
egg laying (oviposition) by sucking insects such as tree hoppers and cicadas. Splitting
of the branch is often enough to kill the end of the branch, i.e. cicada.
Root, stem, branch feeders general decline of entire plant or section of a plant as
indicated by poor color, reduced growth, dieback. Scales, mealy bugs, pine needle scale.
Injury by Internal Feeders
Many insects feed within plant tissue during a part or all of their destructive stages.
They gain entrance to plants either in the egg stage when the female thrust into the tissues
with sharp ovipositors and deposit the eggs there, or by eating their way in after they hatch
from the eggs. In either case, the hole by which they enter is almost always minute and
often invisible. A large hole in a fruit, seed, nut, twig or trunk generally indicates where the
insect has come out, and not the point where it entered.
(a) Borers : When the larvae feed on the wood or pith of the plant or part of the plant
which may be generally large enough to contain the body of the pest, they are referred to as
borers. The larvae may bore into the terminal shoots and cause death of the shoots as in the
case of the cotton bollworm, Earias spp. In the case of the rice stem borer and the sorghum
18
stem borer, the larvae enter into the stem and cause death of the central shoots. An unique
example of an adult beetle borer is that of the coconut rhinoceros beetle, Oryctes rhinoceros,
which bores into the unopened tender fronds biting the fibrous material.
(b) Worms or weevils : They are borers in flower buds and fruits including nuts and
seeds. The larvae bore into flower buds and cause shedding. Such larvae are usually called
bud worms as in the case of the moringa budworm and jasmine budworm. The larvae may
bore into the bolls, nuts, fruits or the seeds inside capsules. The cotton bollworms, the
mango nut weevil, the pink bollworm of cotton, the brinjal fruit borer and the castor capsule
borer come under this category.
(c) Leaf miners : When the larvae, being very small, live in between the two epidermal
layers of the leaves and feed on the food material inside, they are referred to as leaf miners.
Some of the common examples are the citrus leaf miner, the cashew and mango leaf miner,
and the buprestid leaf miner Trachys sp. on Barleria cristata.
(d) Galls : In their immature and or adult stages certain insects are known to be
responsible for the formation of special plant deformities known as galls and these galls
provide shelter and food to the insect. The nutritious sap secreted inside the gall is either
absorbed through the body surface or sucked by the mouthparts. Due to the formation of
galls the growth of the plants may be impaired and setting of fruits, grains and seeds may
be adversely affected. In many cases it may be observed that the galls are practically
harmless to the plants. The galls may be simple as curling of leaves or simple enlargements
of affected portions or of complex structures as in some galls produced by psyllid bugs.
Mostly some species belonging to the families Cecidomyiidae, Cynipidae, Aphididae,
Psyllidae and Aleyrodidae and the order Thysanoptera (thrips) are known to cause plant
galls on the different parts of plants. Flower galls are produced by the midges (cecidomyiids),
Contarinia sorghicola on sorghum and the blossom midge on mango.
Gall insects sting plants and cause them to produce a structure of deformed tissue. The
insect then finds shelter and abundant food inside this plant growth. Although the gall is
entirely plant tissue, the insect controls and directs the form and shape it takes as it grows.
Injury by Subterranean Insects
Subterranean insects are those insects that attack plants below the surface of the soil.
They include chewers, sap suckers, root borers and gall insects. The attacks differ from the
above ground forms only in their position with reference to the soil surface. Some subterranean
insects spend their entire life cycle below ground. In other subterranean insects, there is at
least one life stage that occurs above the soil surface; these include wireworm, root maggot,
pillbug, strawberry root weevil, and corn rootworm. The larvae are root feeders while the
adults live above ground.
Insects which are found in the soil live by feeding on the roots of plants and trees by chewing
or boring or sucking the sap or forming galls. Many soil insects are host specific and most
of them damage the crops in their larval stage as in wireworms, chafers, cutworms, flea
beetles, etc., and only a few spend their life-cycle in the soil entirely. Some insects have
several stages in the soil as in the root grub (Holotrichia sp.) of finger-millet (egg, larva and
pupa in the soil). In some cases as in the fruit flies Dacus spp. of mango, bittergourd, etc.
and the mango inflorescence gall midge only the pupae are found in the soil. The larvae of
the soil pests may be found at different levels in the soil. Though the damage caused to root
may vary depending on the species and crop affected, generally the attacked plants show
stunting, discolouration and withering and death of the plants. The larvae may feed externally
19
on roots as in wireworms, weevil grubs and chafers (white grubs) while in the case of the flea
beetle Longitarsus belgaumensis the grubs bore or tunnel. Sometimes it may be seen that
the seeds sown do not germinate as they have been eaten away by insects like ants in the
soil. The tubers of the sweet potato crops in the fields are sometimes riddled with holes by
the larvae of the weevil Cylas formicarius and the gelechiid moth Phthorimaea operculella,
respectively.
Injury to stored products
In three ways the stored products are attacked by insects.
It may be a continuation of a field attack as in sweet potato weevil and potato tuber moth.
The eggs may be laid in the field itself and the damage may occur in storage as in
redgram infested by the bruchid beetle.
The infestation may continue from the material stored earlier and be carried over to fresh
material stored later in a godown or storage house as in the grain weevil, Sitophilus
oryzae, which infests single grains and the flour moth, Cadra cautella which webs together
the grains with silken threads and feeds on them. Apart from this type of attack the
occasional damage to food material in the stores by cockroaches may also be considered.
INDIRECT EFFECTS OF FEEDING
Making the harvest more difficult
Heavy incidence of some pests on crops makes the harvest of the crop more difficult. It
may be very difficult to harvest cabbage or Lab-lab pods infested heavily with aphids or
kapas from cotton bolls damaged by bollworms.
Causing contamination and loss of quality of produce
Due to insect attack the final produce may show loss of quality by reduction in nutritional
value or in marketability. In the case of cardamom the berries infested by thrips become poor in
quality due to scaly patches on the rind. Other examples are sweet potato tubers riddled with
holes by the weevil Cylas formicarius, brinjal fruits bored by larvae of Leucinodes orbonalis,
amaranthus leaves skeletonised by larvae of Hymenia recurvalis and cabbage riddled with shot
holes by the semilooper Trichoplusia ni.
Disseminate plant diseases
Insects are responsible for spreading many plant diseases caused by bacteria, fungi
and viruses. Though bacteria and fungi have alternative methods of dispersal, many plant
viruses are mostly dependent upon their insect vectors for dissemination.
INJURY BY OTHER METHOD
Injury by egg-laying
Insects take a great deal of care in laying their eggs at the right place so that the young one
will have enough food material for its development, and thus survive. By the act of oviposition
sometimes a few species of insects have been observed to inflict injury to crops. It is a wellknown fact that the periodical cicada, also known as seventeen year locust, splits the wood
severely on twigs of one year old growth for egg laying as a result of which the portion beyond
that dries up. In the case of cow bugs (Membracidae), they insert their eggs in rows into the
tissue of the tender stem and thus cause injury. The grapevine stem girdler, Sthenias grisator,
which attacks a number of plants in South India, chews off the twig by ringing and then inserts
the eggs into the distal portion of the twig so that the larvae may have wood in a suitable condition
of moisture and decay for its development.
20
Use of plant parts for making nests

Sometimes parts of plants are removed by insects for the construction of their nests
though they do not feed on them. A striking example is the removal of rather neat circular
pieces of foliage from plants like rose, redgram, etc. by the leaf cutter bee Megachile
anthracina. Similarly, tropical leaf cutting ants are known to strip off leaves from plants and
trees and carry them to their nests. In the case of the red ant, Oecophylla smaragdina the
nest is constructed on the tree itself by webbing together a few leaves and is a source of
nuisance especially in the orchards.
Injurious insects being carried from one plant to another
Ants and some other kinds of insects though they are not injurious to crops by themselves,
often carry to other plants such injurious forms as aphids, mealy bugs, etc. They care for and
protect these insects for they feed on the honey dew excretion of these pests. This mutual
dependency of two organisms upon each other is termed mutualism.
Use of Plants for Nest Materials
In addition to laying eggs in plants, insects sometimes remove parts of plants for the
construction of nests or for provisioning nests.
Insects as Disseminators of Plant Diseases
Insects may spread plant diseases in the following ways :
By feeding, laying eggs or boring into plants, they create an entrance point for a disease
that is not actually transported by them.
They carry and disseminate the causative agents of the disease on or in their bodies
from one plant to a susceptible surface of another plant.
They carry pathogens on the outside or inside of their bodies and inject plants
hypodermically as they feed.
The insect may serve as an essential host for some part of the pathogens life cycle, and
the disease could not complete its life cycle without the insect host.
SUGGESTED READING
David, B. and Kumaraswami, T. 1975. Elements of Economic Entomology , Popular Book
Depot, Madras, pp. 536.
Metcalf, C.L. and Flint, W.P. 1967. Destructive and Useful Insects their Habits and Control .
Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New Delhi. pp. 1087.
Pedigo, L.P. and Rice, M.E. 2009. Entomology and Pest Management . PHI Learning Private
Limited, New Delhi. pp. 784.
21
METHODS OF ESTIMATING CROP LOSSES

DUE TO INSECT-PESTS
Pala Ram
Three groups of people namely, farmers, industry and the government agencies, need
information on insect pest loss. The farmers need the information to decide whether or not
to use control measures, industry for profit governing and decision making, and the government
for general welfare of the whole community. The evaluation of pest damage is helpful in pest
management in several ways. It helps in defining the economic status of a pest species, in
establishing economic threshold and economic injury levels, in estimating effectiveness of
control measures, in allocating funds for research and extension in plant protection, in
evaluation of varieties, and in knowing relative importance of different pests. Pest damage
assessment involves, i) discovery of damage, ii) determination of pest identity and first
appraisal of its seriousness, iii) determination of the effect on the plant and on overall
production, involving some research on the relation between pest abundance and effect,
and; iv) measurement of its local and national effect on production and management with
some estimate in economic terms (Young, 1975).
1. Pest population and damage relationships :
One of the fundamental concepts of integrated pest management is that each pest species
has a definable relationship in terms of damage to the plant or animal host that it attacks.
This relationship is often referred to as the damage curve which is determined relative to
yield loss. Two types of relationships can generally occur between pest attack and yield.
Type one relationship (Fig. 1) occurs where the pest is a vector of disease, or where it
attacks the grain late in the crop, or where crop tolerance and compensation is limited. Type
two relationship (Fig. 2) occurs where the pest attacks at the vegetative stage of the crop
and the crops innate tolerance (e.g. more tillers than it can take through to maturity) or
compensation mechanisms result in no loss of yield occurring, up to a threshold level of
pest attack. Yields at a wide range of infestations are needed, to describe the full relationship
and to know how yield is affected at low and high infestation rates. There are several methods
for obtaining these figures (Chiarappa, 1971; Pradhan, 1964; Walker, 1983).
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
22
Following experimental techniques are generally applied for assessing crop losses caused
by insect pests :
Comparison of yield in fields with different degrees of pest infestation under natural
conditions :
Naturally occurring infestations often are used to give a range of infestation or damage
in single plant, plot or field. The yield is determined per unit area in different fields with
different degrees of pest infestation and correlation between the crop yield and degree of
infestation is worked out to estimate yield. A study under natural infestation of stem borers
in maize in Kenya, under recommended farm practices, estimated the crop losses at 36.9
% (Mulaa, 1995). Extrapolation of these data may again be dangerous, since crop losses
measured under these conditions might not be representative of actual farmers conditions.
Therefore, only systematic surveys under natural infestations and under farmers conditions
can produce more reliable crop loss estimates for a given area. Groote (2001) used farmers
(often subjective) estimates of losses under natural infestation and the incidence of infestation
to estimate maize yield losses for each of Kenyas major agro-ecological zones. The yield
loss was estimated to be 12.9 %. The advantages of using natural infestations are i) crop
yield responses to attack are exactly as they are in the field, ii) there are no side effects
from chemicals, iii) there is no interference, and iv) pest distribution is natural. A disadvantage
is that there is less experimental control, and hence more variation due to differences in
climate, soil, and other pests or diseases and often a less useful range of infestation rates.
Exclusion of pests by mechanical barriers, allowing direct comparison of yield:
The crop is grown in cages made-up of nylon, metal or cotton cloth. These cages exclude
the pests from crop. Pest infestation may be artificially increased or decreased to establish
known pest densities. Eggs, larvae, or adults are placed in or on the crop in cages in order
to keep pest numbers constant. Metal cages may be used to retain cutworm populations,
soil beetle larvae and to exclude rodents. Natural infestation should be removed by hand, by
trapping or with a non-persistent pesticide, and further infestation prevented. The yield under
such enclosures is compared with that obtained from the infested crop under similar
conditions. A number of studies in eastern Africa have demonstrated a strong relationship
between maize yield and damage caused by artificial infestation of stem borers. Ajala and
Saxena (1994) studied the relationship among damage parameters such as foliar damage,
dead hearts (%), stem tunneling, morphological parameters such as plant height and number
of ears per plant, and their influence on grain, after artificial infestation of three-week-old
maize plants, with 30 first instars. Reduction in the number of ears harvested due to larval
infestation was found to be the primary cause of grain yield loss, mainly due to stem tunneling
of the plants. Yield losses were estimated to fall between 34 and 43 %. Gayawali (2005)
estimated yield loss in soybean due to leaf roller ( Apoderus cyaneus Hope) by introducing
adults into nylon cages installed at the central rows of each plot just after germination of
soybean. Insects were maintained at population density of 25, 50 and 100 per m2.
Percentages of yield losses were 36.2, 45.2, and 58.0 during vegetative and 37.5, 48.5 and
66.0 during reproductive stages from the insect population of 25, 50 and 100, respectively.
The advantages of artificial infestation are that the infestation can be controlled and
other factors removed. The disadvantages are i) pest material for infestation must be collected
at the appropriate stage in the field, ii) infestation by hand can be tiresome and laborious,
iii) timing infestation in relation to crop growth stage or climate may be critical, iv) cages
may affect plant yield as well as the pest population inside them, v) cages may affect yield
by changing light or air flow, but they have little effect on temperature or humidity.
23
Exclusion of pests, or reduction of their populations by the use of pesticides, allowing

direct comparison of yield :
Pesticides have been commonly used in loss assessment experiments to establish
different infestation levels of insects, rodents, birds and other pests, weeds, and plant
diseases. Pesticides may also be used with artificial infestation, caged experiments, and
other methods. The crop is protected from pest damage through the application of pesticides.
The yield of the treated crop is compared with the one which has been subjected to normal
infestation. Losses due to a complex of pests can be assessed using specific pesticides,
method of application, or method of reaching the pests. For example, Bacillus thuringiensis
or viruses may affect only lepidopterous larvae while acaricides only mites. Systemic
insecticides for sucking insects, granules and seed dressing for soil insects, spray on stems
only for insects that attack the stem and insecticidal bait only for pests that eat it such as
fruit flies or cutworms. Basavaraju et al . (2009) estimated yield losses due to various pests
in potato using pesticide check method. They reported that aphids, Myzus persicae caused
3-6 per cent, Spodoptera litura 4-8 per cent, potato tuber moth, Phthoremaea operculella 69 per cent and mite, Polyphagotarsonemus latus , 4-26.80 per cent yield loss. Balraj Singh
et al. (1983) maintained different levels of infestation of mustard aphid on raya crop by using
endosulfan spray. They reported that at population levels of 400, 300, 200, 100 and 50
aphids per plant yield reduction was 54.8, 51.8, 19.7, 13.2 and 2.5 per cent, respectively.
Nabirye et al. (2003) conducted studies to assess the effect of legume flower thrips
( Megalurothrips sjostedti) injury on cowpea grain yields by using various insecticide spray
regimes for obtaining different thrips densities per experimental unit and use of exclusion
cages in the field to confine defined numbers of thrips populations. A significant negative
relationship ( y=0.011x +1.77) was observed in the field studies between thrips densities and
cowpea grain yields.
The advantage of using pesticides is that populations of individual pests can be controlled.
The disadvantages are i) pesticides may reduce crop yield if phytotoxic or may enhance it
as with carbofuran, ii) unknown pests may be affecting yield, and pesticides may affect
them as well as the main pest, iii) pesticides may kill or repel parasitoids, affecting the pest
population, and iv) pesticides also contribute to inter-plot interference and drift or runoff may
affect untreated pests and plants on nearby plots, v) trials with pesticides may also give
biased results when they are deliberately conducted in high-infestation areas.
Simulated damage studies :
Pest damage may be simulated by artificial damage. Many researchers have tried to
simulate pest injury by removing or injuring leaves or other parts of plant. Sabra et al. (2005)
estimated yield loss due to Ostrinia nubilalis in maize by simulating damage. Eight weeks
after plantation, damage of O. nubilalis was simulated through five different treatments, in
addition to the control (healthy plants), by cutting the stem at the: tassel, tassel + one leaf,
tassel + two leaves, tassel + three leaves and at ear level. They reported that simulated O.
nubilalis damage reduced grains yield with about 4.11- 35.14 per cent according to the sort
of damage. Mean weights of grains were 9.724, 9.066, 7.733, 7.467 and 6.577 gm/100 ears
for the different sorts, respectively and 10.141gm/100 ears for the control. The corresponding
percents of yield reduction were 4.11, 10.61, 23.74, 26.37 and 35.14%, respectively. Sandhu
(1974) conducted simulated damage studies on spotted bollworm, Earias vittella on cotton.
In de-topped cotton plants (simulated damage of spotted bollworm) shedding of fruiting bodies
was 83.58 per cent as compared to 71.42 per cent in control plants resulting in 12.82 and
22.10 per cent reduction in yield of seed cotton, respectively. The advantage of this method
is that the amount of damage can be exactly controlled. A disadvantage is that the time of
damage in relation to climate and crop growth stage is often critical.
24
Pest control economics :

Pest population assessment and decision making are among the most basic elements
in any integrated pest management (IPM) programme. Bioeconomics, the study of the
relationships between pest numbers, host responses to injury, and resultant economic losses
forms the basis of assessment and decision making (Pedigo, 1996). The relationship between
density of pest population and the profitability of control measures is expressed through
threshold values namely, economic injury level and economic threshold. Economic injury
level (EIL) concept given by Stern et al. (1959) still forms the basis of most IPM programmes
in use today. Economic damage, economic injury level, and economic threshold collectively
form the concept of EIL.
Economic damage : Economic damage is the most elementary of the EIL elements,
being defined by Stern et al., (1959) as the amount of injury which will justify the cost of
artificial control measures.
Damage boundary or damage threshold : The damage boundary is the lowest level of
injury that can be measured (Pedigo et al . 1986). This level of injury occurs before economic
loss. Expressed in terms of yield, economic loss is reached at the gain threshold, and the
gain threshold is beyond the damage boundary. For high value commodities, the damage
boundary may be very close to the gain threshold.
Economic Injury Level : Another of the basic elements, the economic injury level, was
defined by Stern et al. (1959) as the "lowest population density that will cause economic
damage". The EIL is the most basic of the decision rules; it is a theoretical value that, if
actually attained by a pest population, will result in economic damage. Therefore, the EIL is
a measure against which we evaluate the destructive status and potential of a pest population.
Economic threshold or action threshold : The economic threshold (ET) differs from
the EIL in that it is a practical or operational rule, rather than a theoretical one. Stern et al.
(1959) defined the ET as the population density at which control action should be determined
(initiated) to prevent an increasing pest population (injury) from reaching the economic injury
level. Although measured in insect density, the ET is actually a time to take action, i.e.,
numbers are simply an index of that time. Some workers refer to the ET as the action
threshold to emphasize the true meaning of the ET.
Determination of threshold values :
For determination of EIL, values such as cost of treatment per acre, and value of crop
per acre are required. The following procedure is followed for determination of EIL: i) to work
out cost-benefit ratios, ii) to establish yield-infestation relationship by regression analysis,
and iii) to work out EIL by method of Pedigo (1989). The gain threshold is an important
measure as it represents a basic margin for determining benefits of management and
establishing treatment decision parameters (Pedigo, 1989). The gain threshold is a basic
break-even analysis and can be calculated as a first step when determining the EIL (Pedigo
et al., 1986). The gain threshold is expressed in amount of harvestable yield; when cost of
suppressing insect injury equals money to be gained from avoiding the damage. The gain
threshold is expressed as :
Gain threshold = Management costs (Rs/ha)/Market value (Rs/kg) = kg/ha.
For example, in mustard crop if total cost of pesticidal application for maintaining the
level of 50 aphids/plant is Rs. 900 per ha and mustard seed is marketed for Rs. 30 per kg,
the gain threshold would be: Rs. 900/Rs.30 = 30 kg per ha. This means that the increase in
yield, or gain, has to be 30 kg per ha for this pesticide application to be economic.
EIL = gain threshold/loss per insect.
25
So from the above example, if the gain threshold is 30 kilograms per hectare and the
damage per aphid is 1.5 kg per hectare, then the EIL would be:30/1.5=20+50 (basic level)=70
aphids per plant. So if a field is sampled and aphid population is more than 70 aphids per
plant an appropriate intervention should be used. If there are fewer than 70 aphids per plant,
then we can save money by not intervening as the gain threshold is not high enough to make
intervention economically feasible.
EIL can be also be calculated using full EIL equation which incorporates the following :
EIL=C/VIDK
where,
C = Cost of management activity per unit of production (Rs./ha)
V = Market value per unit of yield or product (Rs./ton)
I = Crop injury per insect (Per cent defoliation/insect)
D = Damage or yield loss per unit of injury (Ton loss/% defoliation)
K = Proportionate reduction in injury from pesticide use
For example calculate EIL in terms of pest population/ha with following figures
C = Management cost per unit area = Rs.6,000/- per ha
V = Market value in Rs./unit product = Rs.2,000/ton
I = Crop injury/pest density = 1% defoliation/100 insects
D = Loss caused by unit injury = 0.05 ton loss/1% defoliation
K = Proportionate reduction in injury by pesticide application = 0.8 (80% control)
Thus,
EIL = C/VIDK = 6000/2000x0.01x0.05x0.8
EIL = 7500 insects/ha or 0.75 insects/ sq. meter
SUGGESTED READING
Dhaliwal, G. S., Arora, R. and Dhawan A. K. (2004): Crop losses due to insect pests in
Indian agriculture: an update. Indian Journal of Ecology, 31 : 1-7.
Pedigo, L. P. and Rice, M. E. 2009. Entomology and Pest Management . Sixth Edition. PHI
Learning Private Ltd., New Delhi. pp. 784.
Pedigo, L. P., and Buntin, G. D. 1994. Handbook of Sampling Methods for Arthropods in
Agriculture . CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 616 pp.
Pedigo, L. P., and Higley, L. G. 1992. A new perspective of the economic injury level concept
and environmental quality. American Entomologist 38 : 12-21.
Pedigo, L. P., Hutchins, S. H. and Higley, L. G. 1986. Economic injury levels in theory and
practice. Ann. Rev. Ent . 31 : 341-368.
Poston, F. L., Pedigo, L. P. and Welch, S. M. 1983. Economic injury levels: reality and
practicality. Bull. ent. Soc. Am . 29 : 49--53.
Pradhan, S. 1964. Assessment of losses caused by insect pests of crops and estimation of
insect population. In : Entomology in India , Entomological Society of India, New Delhi,
pp 17-58
Southwood, T. R. E., and Norton, G. A. 1973. Economic aspects of pest management
strategies and decisions. Ecol. Soc. Aust., Mem . 1 : 168--184.
Stern, V. M., Smith, R. F., Bosch, R. van den, and Hagen, K. S. 1959. The integrated control
concept. Hilgardia 29 : 81--101.
26
SIGNIFICANCE OF INSECT PEST-LOSS RELATIONSHIPS

R. K. Saini
The loss suffered by a crop is a function of the pest population, behaviour of the pest and
the biological characteristics of the crop plant. Loss is caused by feeding or during the
process of oviposition. It may be in the form of loss of production capacity, loss of productive
capacity, loss of stand, direct damage, product contamination and loss in storage etc. The
type of loss by insect pest is influenced by several factors including the organ of the pest
used to cause damage, part of the plant attacked, amount of destruction per unit time and
damage in relation to insect numbers.
Based on feeding behaviour, a pest may be external feeder or internal feeder. The pest may
damage subterranean parts (roots) which may result in wilting of plants; stems of herbaceous
plants; trunks and main branches of trees; twigs and buds, leaves, flowers and fruits.
Definition of loss due to pests
Crop loss implies yield reduction which may be expressed as the percentage of reduction
in potential yield in the absence of pests m. If yield in the presence of pests is y, then
yield loss (w ) = (m - y) 100
m
It is often difficult to establish the maximum potential yield in the absence of pests on
which to base the calculation of yield reductions, and hence benefits. The type of farming,
whether peasant or research, and the amount of inputs are important. The decision depends
on the purpose: to answer a research problem, to assess the economic benefits of a
development project, or to evaluate the relative importance of various pests, weeds, or
diseases.
Type and units of yield
Yield is usually the economic product harvested, either the primary product or a natural
or processed constituent of it. Quality or marketing grade also may be important. Wheatley
(1974) divided pest attacks into those with high or low incidence and high or low severity of
damage. Cases of low incidence or low severity in a high-value crop are sometimes called
cosmetic damage-when a small pest attack causes great loss in crop value.
Yield and loss also can be expressed in terms of energy equivalent, assessed on inputs
of fertilizer, pesticide, and fuel used in producing the yield. Monetary value at the farm gate,
in the market, or on board (if exported) is commonly used. But prices often vary rapidly with
supply and demand. Tax, subsidy and support prices, exchange rate, and even shadow
prices may be used. For subsistence crops, the price of an alternative crop or an opportunity
price may have to be calculated. Using yield quantity avoids these difficulties.
Mechanism of yield reduction due to pests
The effect of pests and other causes of yield reduction in a crop is best seen as a
system or flow chart. In an individual plant, inputs of radiation, water, and nutrients enter the
leaves and roots, and are translocated to a sink. From the sink they are partitioned and
carried by translocation to the reproductive parts (grain, fruit, or storage organs such as
cassava roots or sugarcane stems) the yield.
27
The system is plastic and dynamic. Yields of individual parts or modules such as tillers
or spikelets interact and compensate to give the plant yield (Harper 1977). Plant yields
interact and compensate to give the crop yield. Reduction in one part of the system can be
compensated for by an increase in another. If values are put on the inputs and the rates of
change, we have a crop production system that can be modeled: the effects of different
inputs (such as a pest attack) can be simulated and yield predicted. Such production system
models are being developed for many crops.
Pests may affect crop yields in the following ways : (Walker P. T. ,1977)
Establishment, if germination and early growth of plants are affected by beetle larvae,
cutworms, armyworms, crickets, termites, etc.
Photosynthetic area, if lost due to damage by leaf-eating, mining, or leaf-folding pests,
aphids, and bugs, or by shading of leaves with honeydew or sooty mold.
Uptake of water or nutrients, if reduced by root pests, beetle larvae, borers, termites,
etc.
Translocation, if interrupted from leaves and roots to stores and to yielding parts by stem
borers, cutworms, scales, mealybugs, rodents, etc.
Storage organs, if stems, roots, and tubers are damaged by borers, tuber moth larvae,
beetle larvae, rodents, etc.
Reproductive parts, if seeds and grain are damaged by midges, beetles, bugs, caterpillars,
locusts, rodents, and birds, or fruit by moths, fruit flies, bugs, hoppers, scales, etc. Loss of
quality is important.
Secondary loss, if secondary pests or diseases enter primary damage lesions or diseases
are introduced by insect vectors.
Spoilage and down grading, if a product becomes unacceptable in the market because of
holes, spots, insect parts, rodent excreta, etc., even if there is no loss of weight or quality.
Harvesting and processing, if pest attack makes crops difficult to harvest or process,
such as fire-ants in cashew, moth webbing, sticky cotton lint, mealybug mold on citrus, etc.
Pest-loss relationship : infestation and yield (Source : P. T. Walker ,1977).
How yield varies with changes in pest infestation or damage is important in predicting
the yields, and hence the benefits, that will be obtained with pest control measures. The
relationship is useful in evaluating economic action thresholds, pest densities, or damage
levels that cause different amounts of yield loss. The regression may be simple, ignoring
many other factors, or complex, incorporating individual relationships for several plant parts
or the effects of several different pests or other causes of loss (Fig. 1). The relationship may
change with time of attack, stage of pest, method of assessment, growth stage of the crop,
or general growing conditions (Bardner and Fletcher 1974; Southwood and Norton 1973;
Walker 1983a,b).
A straight-line relationship (Fig. 1A)
When one individual or group of pests damages one plant or one plant part (e.g. a midge
infesting one floret), a proportional decrease in yield may occur with an increase in infestation.
No compensation by the plant or by parts of it occurs, and there is no threshold level below
which yield is not reduced.
28
A sigmoid or S-shaped relationship (Fig. 1B)

If the relation between y and i is examined over a full range of values of i , there is often
a threshold value below which no reduction in yield occurs, mostly due to compensation by
unattacked parts or by clean plants for attacked ones. The result is a sigmoid curve, with a
central, straight-line section, and a final flattening at high values of i when some yield is
often produced, Rate of loss b changes with the value of i. Sometimes only the convex
half of the curve is found, when attack is early, on vegetative parts, leaves, etc., and
compensation can occur. Sometimes only the concave curve is found, when attack is on
reproductive parts, such as grain, and compensation is impossible. It is difficult to fit a
formula to a sigmoid curve, unless summed and a probit transformation of the normal
probability distribution of yields is used to linearize the relationship, as with dosage-mortality
curves.
A logarithmic relationship (Fig. 1C)
Yield may be related to the logarithm or a power of the number of pests, where their
effects are multiplicative rather than additive. Examples are mobile or rapidly multiplying
pests, such as whiteflies or aphids. There may be compensation for attack. Transformation
of pest density, for example ( i ) to log ( i + l), may be needed.
Rapid yield loss at low rates of infestation (Fig. 1D)
Small numbers of pests sometimes can cause a disproportionate reduction in yield, for
example, if the pest is a disease vector, as in the effect on rice yield of brown planthopper,
the vector of grassy stunt disease (Dyck 1974). Cosmetic damage, such as scale on citrus,
is another example. Gradients of disease attack are discussed by Thresh (1976).
An increase in yield (Fig. 1E)
Low infestations can cause an increase in yield; yield falls with a further increase in
infestation. Pest attack may stimulate growth and yield. Destruction of the growing point of
tillering plants such as rice, or of plants with continuous production of fruiting points such
as cotton, will cause a yield increase if growing conditions are favorable. If there is too much
foliage and not enough light, reduction of leaf area by leaf-eating pests may increase light
falling on the plants and increase yield. Pest attack also may increase drying at maturity,
increasing the sugar content of sugarcane. Or pests may selectively attack higher yielding
plants, giving a positive relationship between infestation and yield. The subject is reviewed
by Harris (1974).
No relation between infestation and yield (Fig. 1F)
Sometimes, unaccountably, no relationship is found. This may result from trying to
average highly variable data, from not having a full range of infestations (such as no zero
attack) or from some other effect. Variation should be reduced by altering plot or sampling
design, by stratifying sources of variation into types of farming, soil, or other cause of variation,
or by improving the techniques of measuring infestation, control, or yield.
A model for predicting yield from the amount of pest infestation can be improved by
including factors that affect pest population. Biocontrols such as parasitoids or disease,
temperature as degree days, and rainfall can be used. For example, loss of forage due to
grasshoppers has been forecast from grasshopper development (Hewitt and Onsager 1982).
That prediction depended on temperature summation (Gage and Mukerji 1971). Such models
must take into account the distribution and probability of attack and a possible nonlinear
response of the pest to a controlling factor (Feldman and Curry 1982).
29
Fig. 1.
Pest-loss relationship (Source : P. T. Walker, 1977).

A. A straight-line relationship
B. A sigmoid or S-shaped relationship
C . A logarithmic relationship
D . Rapid yield loss at low rates of infestation
E. An increase in yield
F. No relation between infestation and yield.
Duration of pest attack

Crop yield reduction depends on the duration of pest attack as well as pest density. This
can be quantified by relating yields to bug days, the number of pests multiplied by the
number of days they are present. This method has been used for brown planthopper.
30
Mixed crops
In multiple cropping, two or more crops are often grown togetherat once, overlapping,
or serially during the season. One way to relate yield ( y ) to pest attack is to express the
different crops (a and b) in terms of the pure stand of one crop (a) on the same area a land
equivalent ratio (LER) (Zandstra et a1 1981): If different crops are grown for different periods
of time, an area time equivalent ratio is useful (Hiebsch 1978). That brings in the proportion
and time each crop occupies an area in the total crop pattern. The effect of pests on yield is
measured by the same techniques as in single rops, with and without pests, etc.
Missing plants and plant interaction and compensation
The distribution of a pest attack in a field affects the relationship between yield and
attack. In a spaced-out attack with missing plants unattacked plants next to a missing or
attacked plant usually yield more than if all are unattacked, due to the removal of competition
for light, water, or nutrients. The compensation depends on the degree of competition resulting
from plant spacing, weeds, and growing conditions.
Often, some pest attack can be tolerated without loss of yield. If attacked or missing
plants occur in large groups however, compensation cannot occur. Yield falls rapidly with a
rise in infestation. Compensation can be measured by examining the yield of an unattacked
plant surrounded by different arrangements of attacked plantsfor example, groups of five
(pentads) of potato plants (Killick 1979) or in cylinders of influence around tobacco plants
attacked by cutworm (Shaw 1980). The effect of missing plants is seen in the hyperbolic
relationship between plant weight and population, the 3/2 thinning rule (Solbrig 1980), and
the simple model of Hardwick and Andrews (1983). The difference between actual and expected
yield of attacked potatoes has been used to show how well different plants can compensate
for attack (Adams and Lapwood 1983). Different causes of loss interact so much and yield
response is so variable, one is really dealing with a response surface. Multivariate methods
are the only accurate way to look at all the factors involved. Ecology and weed science are
providing some answers (Begon and Mortimer 1986).
Distribution of loss
The statistical distribution of crop loss over a wide area in both space and time is obviously
related to pest distribution. Distributions are often nonrandom, either because climate or
crops often occur in aggregated groups or because they occur at regular intervals. If the
distribution were known, it would be easier to predict crop losses and the need for pesticides.
Tanner (1962) found similar loss distribution curves when the summed frequency of losses
as percentages of total loss were plotted against multiples of the average loss. Curves can
be linearized by taking logs. In this way, the actual and expected curves can be compared
to explain why differences in loss distribution exist (e.g. because of different sowing times
[Walker 1965]).
SUGGESTED READING
Adams J M (1964). A review of the literature concerning losses in cereals and pulses since
1964. Trop. Sci. 19 : 1-28.
Ahrens C, Cramer H H, Mock M, Peschel H (1983). Economic aspects of crop losses. Proc.
10th Int. Congr. Plant Prot . Brighton, 1 : 65-73.
31
Bardner R, Fletcher K E (1974). Insect infestations and their effects on growth and yield of
field crops. Bull. ent. Res. 64 : 141-160.
Chiarappa L, ed. (1971). Crop Loss Assessment Methods : FAO Manual on the Evaluation
and Prevention of Losses by Pests, Diseases, Weeds . Food and Agriculture Organization
and Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International, Slough, UK. 123 p.
FAO-Food and Agriculture Organization (1977) Analysis of an FAO survey of post-harvest
crop losses in developing countries. Rep. AGPP: MISC./27. Rome, Italy. 147 p.
Harris P (1974). Possible explanations of plant yield increases following insect damage.
Agroecosystems . 1 : 219-225.
Headley J C (1972b). The economics of agricultural pest control. Ann. Rev. Ent . 17 : 273.
Khosla R K (1977). Techniques for assessment of losses due to pests and diseases of rice.
Indian J. agric. Sci . 47 : 171-174.
Mumford J D, Norton G A (1984). Economics of decision-making in pest management. Ann.
Rev. Ent . 29 : 157-174.
Mumford J D, Norton G A (1987). Economics of integrated pest management. Pages 191200. In : Crop Loss Assessment and Pest Management . P. S. Teng, ed. APS Press, St.
Paul, Minnesota.
Norton G A (1976b). Pest control decision-making, an overview. Ann. appl. Biol . 84 : 444447.
Pedigo L, Hutchins S H, Highley L G. Economic injury levels in theory and practice. Pimentel
D, ed. (1981) Pest Management in Agriculture . 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Pinstrup-Andersen P, de Londoo N, Infante M (1976). A suggested procedure for estimating
yield and production losses in crops. PANS . 22 : 359-365.
Reed W (1983). Crop losses caused by insect pests in the developing world. Proc. 10th Int.
Congr. Plant Prot . Brighton. 1 : 74-79.
Stem V M (1973). Economic thresholds. Ann. Rev. Ent . 18 : 258-280.
Walker P T (1977). Crop losses : some relations between infestation, cost of control and
yield in pest management. Environ. Entomol . 5 : 891-900.
Walker P T (1983a). The assessment of crop losses in cereals. Insect Sci. Applic .
4 : 97-104.
32
PROCEDURE FOR COLLECTING PLANT AND

INSECT SAMPLES FOR PROBLEM DIAGNOSIS
K. K. Mrig and S. S. Sharma
Department of Entomololgy,
Most plants are prone to attack by various insect pest and plant disease organisms.
Pest outbreaks and diseases must be identified accurately to enable their efficient
management.
Basic requirements for collecting, preserving and submitting plant, insect and disease
samples
(A) Collecting plant samples :
It is important to gather the best plant samples possible and to record all pertinent
background information for the diagnostician. Following are general guidelines for collecting
plant samples.
1. Examine the entire plant for symptoms
Plants may be affected by one or more pathogenic microorganisms or pests, although
they may also have an abiotic disease that does not involve a plant pathogen. Affected
Plants often display a range of symptomsvisual signs of the infection or pest damage.
2. Collect several plant specimens
A single plant sample may not be enough to allow a correct diagnosis of the problem;
several plant samples showing the range of symptoms may be needed. If possible, select
samples with various stages of disease development (early and late stages). but submitting
excessive amounts of leaves or soil should be avoided.
How to collect data in the field?
Identifying the sampling sites
(a) Tagging the site
Mark sampling sites in the field whenever possible, even if you do not intend to return to
the same site so that if a specimen or observation taken islost or destroyed, you would be
able to revisit the site if needed. Remember to choose tags that will survive a variety of
weather conditions, and use a pencil or ink that does not smear when wetted to label the
tags. Options for marking the site include:
spray-painting a mark
placing sticks with a bright tassel or tag, particularly where a pest has been completely
removed (such as weeds), but only when the stick or marker will not interfere with the
management of the site, such as getting caught in harvesting equipment
tying a tag or tassel to a plant stem or branch.
(b) Recording site details
The location and unique identifying details of each site need to be recorded in a notebook.
These details may be entered using a standard form that can be used for each site.
33
Describing the sampling site would include information such as a GPS reading, a unique
number, distances from visual cues (e.g. 20 metres from roadside), number or nearest number
of plant in a row (e.g. tenth tree in third row from the northeastern corner), or any distinguishing
topographical features (e.g. edge of a ravine, in a ditch).
What data to record in the field
The most important tool you will have with you in the field will be your notebook and
notes. In your notes you would record any information that could otherwise be forgotten,
such as the dates of surveying, the weather at the time, the site details, the names and
contact details of the local people involved.
Notebooks with carbon paper duplicate pages can be very useful when recording
information to accompany a specimen taken. In this way, the details are written once only
but you then have a permanent record in your notebook and a copy to be kept with the
specimen.
Designing a form
The simplest way to record data is to design a form that allows for recording all the
information that you intend to collect.
A simple way to save a lot of time is to work out ahead of the survey how the data will be
stored and to design your form so that it is easy to transfer the information to the storage
system. When designing a form, you could include the following :
observers name
field site number or name
sampling site number or name
targeted pest namescommon and scientific
time and date
brief description of weather conditions
locations, such as by GPS readings, of sampling sites
description of habitat (e.g. aspect, vegetation, soil type)
scale/population density categories that could be ticked
symptoms of the pest or host
pest life stage or state (e.g. larvae, pupae, adults for insects; anamorph/teleomorph state
for fungi; seedling, budding, senescent, first flush for plants)
caste of colonial insects surveyed, such as of termites, ants and some wasps
behavioural notes on possible vectors (e.g. insect ovipositing on fruit or insect restingon
plant leaf ) area or length of plot or transect assessed
cross-reference to pest example in a pest photo library
colour of identifying features, such as of flowers
any quarantine measures applied at the field site, such as hygiene measures
treatments applied to site
additional comments
34
Units for data

Data are normally reported in terms of a unit of measure, usually the number of pests
per unit area. The number might be a direct count of the pests or could be a scale of
intensity of the pest that is recorded. The area examined might be per tree, fruit, field, crop,
kilometre, quadrat, sweep of a net, trap etc. For example: number of shoots attacked per
plant, number of trees affected as compared with the total number of trees examined.
Use of scales and scores
In some cases where the pest is numerous, or particularly for symptoms of plant
pathogens, whole numbers of pests are not possible or useful. Instead, a scale of cover of
the host or a standardised measure of the pest could be used. Scales are semi-quantitative
as the scale intervals can be wide and may not be consistent in their range.
3. Preserving plant samples
After collecting the samples, do not expose them to direct sunlight. Keep them cool and
do not allow them to dry out or cook. Place samples in plastic bags in the shade or in a
cooler until they are ready for delivery to the plant clinic. Leaves may be pressed between
the pages of a book or magazine or wrapped in tissue.
(A) Collecting insect samples
Collect whole insects in good condition.
Collect as many insect stages as possible: eggs, larvae, pupae, and adults.
Place the insects in 70 per cent isopropyl alcohol immediately. Keep moths and
butterflies intact in small containers or wrapped with plastic or paper.
Spiders should be collected alive, dropped into hot (180 degrees F) water, and
transferred to 70 per cent isopropyl alcohol after cooling.
If the insect was causing plant damage, include a plant specimen showing evidence
of the plant injury.
Avoid touching insects with fingers : Some insects can injure humans. Handling
insects can also cause damage to their bodies that may prevent their identification.
Collect different life stages of the insect : Sometimes insects cannot be properly
identified unless a certain life stage is present. For example, adults may be needed
for correct identification.
Collect multiple specimens : Collect several specimens of the insect. Time of day
matters. Many leaf-feeding insects (such as caterpillars) may hide from predators
during daylight hours. It may be necessary to capture insects during twilight in the
evening or early morning.
(B) Preserving insect specimens
(i) Most insects : Roaches, termites, bugs, beetles, flies, wasps, ants, maggots,
spiders, etc. should be immersed in isopropyl (rubbing) alcohol, which kills and
preserves them.
(ii) Mites, scales, aphids, thrips : Send these in alive on some of the affected foliage
or stems, collected as you would a plant specimen. Place in a plastic bag when
collected. refrigerate until sent.
35
(iii) Butterflies and moths : Kill the specimens by freezing, wrap lightly in tissue paper,
and place in a crush-proof box. Careful handling is required because the pattern of
scale coloration is often used in identification.
(iv) Caterpillars : Send in alive on some of the host plant tissues in a plastic bag.
Refrigerate until sent.
(v) Grubs: Send in alive in a pint or two of soil enclosed in a plastic bag. Refrigerate
until sent.
(C) Packaging plant and insect samples
It is important to package the samples properly to ensure they arrive in good condition
at the plant clinic. Following are general guidelines for handling and packaging plant and
insect samples.
Use plastic bags
For most samples including leaves, stems and roots, use plastic bags to prevent plant
samples from drying out during transport. However, fleshy fruits, vegetables, or tubers in
stages of decay should be wrapped individually in dry newspaper.
Submit samples as soon as possible
Decayed plant or insect samples are useless for an accurate disease diagnosis. Always
plan to have samples arrive at the Centre within one or two days of their collection, if possible,
or take steps to inhibit the deterioration or decay of samples (i.e., by refrigeration).
Representative, moderate symptoms
Do not submit dead plants for diagnosis. Place roots and soil together in a Plastic bag
and close it securely. Place several branches showing decline or dieback in a separate
plastic bag. For smaller plants, submit an entire plant (confine the root ball in a plastic bag
tied tightly to the stem). Place the entire plant in another plastic bag and close it securely.
Be sure there is no water on the foliage surfaces (this causes deterioration during shipping).
General Packaging Guidelines
1. Take your samples before applying pesticides; otherwise the ability to recover disease
pathogens may be limited.
2. Dont add water or pack a sample that is wet or in wet paper
3. After your samples are collected keep them refrigerated until submitted.
4. Dont mix samples in the same submission bag. Moisture from root samples will
contribute to the decay of foliage if they are mixed together.
5. Plant disease identification procedures do not utilize soil. Excess soil can be hand
shaken from root systems.
6. Please mark sample packages with a Warning if there are thorns or spines
7. All samples must be accompanied with a completed Plant Disease Diagnostic Form.
8. Note recent pesticide history on the form accompanying the sample
9. Samples arriving from sites that are two days or less mailing time from a clinic can be
sealed in plastic bags for shipping
36
10. Samples arriving from distances greater than two days mailing time from a clinic should
be packed tightly in a box with dry paper.
11. Mail samples early in the week to avoid the weekend layover in the post office.
12. For emergency samples or anything you suspect might be a dangerous exotic, use
overnight courier services or overnight mail.
Plant and Insect Sample Submissions
Try to collect several specimens in different stages of development. Some identification
keys we use are for adults, while other are for immature bugs.
Insects submitted whole are more useful than when submitted in segments.
Packing Insects
Insects should be killed before shipping. Live caterpillars often pupate during shipment
and beetles may eat their way out of the shipping container.
Send all mature and immature insects (except butterflies and moths) in a glass vial or
bottle containing ethyl or isopropyl (rubbing) alcohol.
The vial or bottle must be properly padded in a mailing tube or other container to prevent
breaking. Make sure that the cap for the vial is well secured so the alcohol doesnt leak
from within the vial during hipping.
Send butterflies or moths dry in pill boxes or a similar container with tissue paper to
prevent the specimen from being broken.
It is often easier to identify an insect by seeing the damage it is doing to foliage, twig,
fruit or other plant parts.
If foliage or tender twigs are sent, they should be placed in a plastic bag and sealed.
During the summer months, add a paper towel with the plant material when mailing
specimens in a plastic bag. It absorbs excess moisture and helps prevent the plants
from decaying and molds forming en route.
Thus, plant material will remain moist and will arrive in a condition that enables analysis.
Mailing leaves in paper envelopes results in their drying out so that insect damage is difficult
to determine.
Setting up plant health clinic (or diagnostic laboratory)
The plant clinic acts as the farmer interface; the place where the farmers individual
questions are answered and needs are met. It provides expert support, capacity building,
training and diagnostics. The team works alongside local partners to train local people to
become plant doctors. Then share the knowledge in surveillance and diagnostic techniques,
integrated pest management, technology development, pesticide use and reduction, markets
and government policy.
How the plant clinics works?
The clinics are made accessible to farmers by holding them on a regular basis in a
prominent local meeting place, such as a market. When the farmer has a problem with a
crop, he/she can bring a sample along to the plant clinic. At the clinic a trained plant
doctor listens to the farmer, examines the sample, diagnoses the problem and offers a
37
suggested treatment. Treatment suggestions are affordable for farmers and use locally
available resources. The correct chemicals are recommended only when necessary. With
access to these services farmers can tackle pests and diseases and produce healthy
crops and productive yields. With successful harvests farmers can feed and support
their families. Diagnosis is not always straightforward. Sometimes plant doctors need to
send samples to a laboratory (in exactly the same way that a family doctor sends samples
to a hospital laboratory).
Table 1.
Plant health clinics around the world.
Country
No.
Started
Managed by
Bangladesh
25
2004
RDA Bogra, AAS, and Shushilan
Bolivia
early 2004
CIAT Santa Cruz, PROINPA, and UMSS
DR Congo
March, 2006
Universit Catholique du Graben, Butembo
India
August, 2006
GB Pant University of Agriculture and Technol.
Indonesia
October, 2007
University of North Sumatera (USU)
Nicaragua
14
March, 2005
Farmer organisations, NGOs, INTA, and others.

Supported by PASA II (danida) and other donors.
Uganda
July, 2006
Socadido, SG2000, Caritas and MAAIF
Vietnam
June, 2007
SOFRI
With India planning to introduce clinics in all 40 states, the stage is set for providing
poor farmers with better advice that helps them grow healthy crops with reduced risk and
lower costs.
SUGGESTED READING
Borror, Donald J., Dwight M. DeLong and Charles A. Triplehorn.1964. An Introduction to the
study of insects , p. 730-747. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
David Cook. 2005. Photographing Insects and Spiders & what we need to see for identification.
Entomology & Plant Pathology, University of Tennessee, p1-25.
Knutson, Lloyd. 1964. Preparation of specimens submitted for Identification to the Systematic
Entomology Laboratory, USDA. Bull. ent. Soc. Am . 22 : 130.
Methven,K.M., Jeffords,R., Weinzierl, R.A. and McGiffen.1995. How to Collect and Preserve
insects. Illinois Natural history Survey, Champaign-Urbana, pp.76.
Sabrosky,CurtisW. 1971. Packing and shipping of pinned insects. Bull . ent. Soc. Am. 17 :
6-8.
William H. Hoffard. 2001. How to Collect and Prepare Forest Insects, Disease Organismsa
and Plant Specimens for Identification. USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Area, State
and Private Forestry 1720 Peachtree Road, N.W.Atlanta.
38
INSECT SAMPLING FOR DECISION MAKING

IN CROP LOSS ASSESSMENT
R. K. Saini
Different activities of insects such as their populations on the crop, damage inflicted to
the plants, insect stage present, local movement, migration and dispersal etc. are documented
through surveillance. The decision, whether the control interventions are needed depends
upon the accurate estimation of numbers. Further, based on the study of interrelations of
pests populations with various environmental factors we should be able predict the future
population trends or outbreaks of pests so that appropriate control measures are initiated
when required. So, survey is a planned activity to collect some data. When survey of the
same place or locality is carried out at regular interval to record some observation or to
ascertain the changes or fluctuations in the subject of study it is called surveillance.
2. Objective of pest monitoring
In relation to pest management, the major objective of pest monitoring is to assess the
pests population and/or the damage caused by them to the crop regularly in order to decide
when to undertake control interventions. The data so obtained for several years in the
background of varied environmental conditions may help in working out pest-environment
relationships or interactions to aid in pest forecasting with reasonable precision. Further,
endemic areas of various pests may also be marked. Since pest surveillance is a costly
affair it would be quite appropriate to gather information on other parameters also, which
affect the success of a pest management programme. For example, surveillance programme
may be planned in such a way that could include information on natural enemies of pests
also. Similarly, surveillance could also be undertaken for monitoring of build up of insecticide
resistance in insects. To achieve the above objectives one should have a thorough knowledge
of the diagnostic symptoms of damages caused by the pests on the crops and also of pests
life history and behaviour.
Sampling insect populations
It is not possible or even desirable to count all the insects in a habitat. Therefore, to
estimate the population density or the damage caused by it to the crop, one has to resort to
sampling. The basic principle of pest sampling and advances made in sampling have been
reviewed by Morris (1960), Cochran (1977), Southwood (1978) and Kuno (1991) and Binns
and Nyrop (1992). However, randomization and choice of sample unit are the fundamentals
of sampling. Importance of drawing a random and representative sample is well known. The
total number of samples to be taken depends on the degree of precision required. This may
be expressed either in terms of achieving a standard error of pre-determined size or in
probability terms.
Assessment methods (Chiarappa, 1971)
A detailed account of assessment methods has been given by P. T. Walker in Chiarappa,
L. ed. (1971). The following information is mainly based on the methodology suggested
therein. There are almost as many ways to assess pests as there are types of pest. A good
guide to all aspects is Southwood (1978). For general accounts, see Bardner and Fletcher
(1974); chapters in Chiarappa (1971). Survey manuals have been produced by USDA (1969)
39
and the Philippines, Thailand, India, and other countries. Standard pest evaluation methods
have been published by IRRI for germplasm selection in rice and other crops (Standard
evaluation system for rice) and by other international agricultural institutes for other crops.
Agrochemical companies sometimes produce guides to pest assessment in connection
with pesticide trials (Puntener 1981).
Choosing assessment methods
When choosing or developing methods, consider the following aspects (Walker 1980):
they should be quick, simple, and inexpensive, and should measure the actual pest population
or damage as accurately as possible. Methods should be standardized, to make possible
comparison of different assessments, to remove bias due to the observer, and to allow study
and testing of the value of the method. Standard methods should be published in a survey
manual, with details of how, where, and when to sample; the size and number of samples;
and the stage of pest and crop, with keys and growth stage charts (Reissig et al. 1986).
When assessing intensity or severity of damage, standard area keys, such as those used
for disease lesions, are valuable to avoid observer error.
DIRECT ASSESSMENT METHODS
On the ground
Insects and other animals should, if possible, be counted on a standard base, usually
area of ground (e.g. number of larvae per m 2). If counted on a nonstandard unit, such as
length of crop row, weight of crop, hill, plant, shoot, tiller, stem, internode, leaf, head, grain,
or panicle, the unit should be converted to a m 2 base.
Direct counts. Aphids are counted per unit of leaf or tiller, bugs per panicle,
leafhoppers per stem, beetle larvae per volume of soil, etc. Absolute pest density is found by
multiplying by the number of units per m 2.
Cutting open. Grains are cut open to count fly or beetle larvae, legume pods to count pod
borers, stems for stem borers, roots for root borers, etc.
For example, formulae for per cent rice tiller infestation by stem borers from samples in
infested hills (Gomez and Gomez, 1964) :
No. of infested tillers in Hi
% infested tillers
Where Hi
Total tillers in Hi
Number of infested hills
Number of Hi x 100
Total hills
Beating, brushing, and knockdown. Plants or panicles may be shaken into a box or
on a sheet, hoppers or bugs collected with an electric pump (Cario et al . 1979) or by mouth
suction inside a walled quadrat. A non-persistent knockdown agent such asCO 2 (Aquino and
Heinrichs 1986) or insecticide such as dichlorvos or a pyrethroid may be used on a plant or
panicle in a bag, box, or on a sheet to collect fallen insects. Pests such as aphids or mites
can be brushed off leaves, sometimes with a mechanical brush, and sometimes collected in
a preservative liquid.
Washing off. Aphids, mites, or eggs removed with a solvent can be washed off and
measured by volume.
Crushing. Colored aphids or mites can be crushed on glossy or absorbent paper, or
grains containing live insects crushed on ninhydrin paper, and the spots produced counted.
40
Pests in soil and debris

Samples of a standard area to a known depth and specified volume are taken with a core
borer or by digging. A preliminary survey will ensure that samples are representative of pest
distribution. In dry extraction (K. E. Fletcher in Chiarappa, 1971), such as the Tullgren
funnel, a light bulb or other source of heat drives out insects which are collected in an
alcohol tube. In wet extraction (J. F. Newman in Chiarappa, 197l), as in the Salt and Hollick
method, samples may be soaked, shaken with detergent, insects floated off in salt solutions
such as magnesium sulfate, and separated by centrifuging. Some soil insects can be driven
out of the soil with an insecticide or an irritant such as formaldehyde.
In the air
Counts in the environment are more difficult to standardize. It may be possible to relate
catches by suction trap, sweep net, light trap, or pheromone trap to actual pest population
densities on the ground by correcting for differences in the trap or differences in surroundings
(brightness, position, temperature, wind speed, etc.), but such counts are usually no more
than estimates of actual pest populations. As with all samples, they are liable to sampling
error. These methods, however, are so valuable the limitations are often accepted. Some
methods for locusts are given by Symmons (1981).
Sticky traps : Aphids, mites, hoppers, flies, hymenoptera, caterpillars, and beetles may
be caught by this method. A flat, cylindrical, or round board or plastic sheet is coated with
sticky material, such as tree-banding grease (Ryan and Molyneux 1981) or car grease, and
placed on the ground or in an attractant trap within the standing crop. The catch is washed
off in solvent, identified, and counted. Height and position of the trap in the crop are important,
and regular attention is necessary to protect it from rain or dust. Southwood (1978) compares
catches by different hinds of trap.
Color traps : Leaf pests are often attracted to BS 0.001 or Munsell 5 OY 9/14 Yellow,
other pests like white, some fruit pests like red coloured traps. The best size, shape, and
color of trap to use is determined through trial. Color is sometimes combined with water
traps, as Kisimoto (1968) did for Laodelphax in rice, or with sticky or pheromone traps.
Water traps : Aphids, hoppers, and flies are commonly caught. Shallow plastic dishes,
5-8 cm deep, containing water, detergent, and an oil film are placed in or near the crop. Trap
height and wind direction are important. A colored dish may add attraction. Overflow holes
are useful to prevent flooding.
Chemical attraction : Attraction to a trap is a piece of the food plant, a chemical from
the plant, or other substance. Fruit flies, sorghum shootflies, banana weevils, coconut beetles,
and moths and hymenoptera can be trapped this way. A trap crop may also be used,
particularly if destructive sampling is planned.
Pheromone traps : Trapping by attracting males to female pheromone or, if the
pheromone is not available, to the female (or in some cases, females to male), has a great
advantage in that it is specific and traps are simple, relatively inexpensive, easy to maintain,
and less liable to theft or vandalism. These traps can indicate when a pest attack is near
and, sometimes, how large an infestation to expect (Campion and Nesbitt 1981). The
development and supply of pheromone are best left to experts. Trap design is important
(Lewis and Macauley 1976, Steck and Bailey 1978). Flat, cylindrical, and triangular shapes;
and cartons, funnels, and plastic bags with talc, sticky surfaces, and water baths have been
used, depending on the size and behavior of the insect and the weather. The position of the
trap in the crop and the condition and rate of release of pheromone are important. The
41
difficulty is to relate the number caught, particularly if the insects caught are only males, to
the actual pest life cycle, level of pest attack, the best time to apply a control, and crop
yield loss.
Sweep net : Sweeping can give repeatable results if the diameter of the net opening
and the number, extent, and frequency of sweeps are constant. The method was analyzed
by Ruesink and Haynes (1973).
Suction traps : Trapping or collecting insects by air suction is useful where attraction
to light or chemicals is of no use and where motor, mains, or battery electric power is
available. Continuous sampling at different levels above the crop can give valuable indications
of when, which and how many pests will attack
Light traps : If an oil, gas pressure, or electric light source is available, a light trap is
valuable for monitoring relative and absolute pest numbers and the seasonal appearance of
many species of moths, hoppers, and beetles (Rabb and Kennedy 1979, Bouden 1982).The
strength, wavelength, and direction of the light, the weather, and the presence of other light,
including moonlight (Verheijen 1960), are important. Some traps use ultraviolet or black
light, have a timing mechanism, or are daylight activated, and are equipped with a protective
roof, electrified vanes, or a suction pump.
Insecticide (e.g. dichlorvos) and something to prevent damage to the insects should be
placed in the trap container. A serious disadvantage is that the large, nonspecific catches
often demand some sort of sample divider (Shepard 1984).
Pitfall traps : In dry areas, smooth-sided plastic pots level with the soil surface will
collect mobile ground insects, predators, etc. They need frequent attention and protection
from flooding, birds, and ants.
Shelter traps and emergence traps : Some animals may be trapped and counted by
collecting them under some form of shelter (for example, termites under sheets of paper
[McMahen and Watson 1977]). Insects emerging from the soil can be caught using an inverted
funnel with a collecting tube at the top.
Mark, release, and recapture : If marking does not alter behavior, insects or other
animals can be marked, released, and recaptured. Populations can be estimated using the
Lincoln Index :
Number marked and released x total number caught
Population
=
Number marked caught
The method used depends on whether pests are removed or replaced, and on survival
and migration (Blower et al 1981). Marking can be with combinations of paint spots, external
coloring or UV fluorescent dust, internal dye, or radioactive, bacterial, or genetic markers.
INDIRECT ASSESSMENT METHODS
It is often easier, quicker, and cheaper to count or estimate the indirect effects of pests.
The difference between incidence (damage or number of damaged plants) and intensity or
severity (degree or extent of damage) should be noted. Incidence is a discrete measure,
intensity is continuous and finite.
Whole plants. The number or percentage of missing or damaged plants is often recorded.
Soil pests, cutworms, stem borers, etc., may cause loss of plant stand. Errors in damage
assessment may occur if the number of missing plants is not taken into account.
42
Stems : The number or percentage of wilted sterns or dead central shoots (deadhearts)
indicates the intensity of attack by stem borers, shoot flies, or boring beetles; the number of
silvershoots (galls) indicates intensity of attack by gall midge. Number of exit holes or the
presence or length of tunnels have also been used. The usefulness of number of nodes
bored depends on the pest species and the variety and stage of crop. Termite, ant, cutworm,
sawfly, and rodent attack can be assessed from fallen or cut stems, cassava mite and
mealybug attack by number of stunted, leafless shoots.
Leaves : Holes, spots, mines, rolls, or epidermis removal indicate attack by stem borers,
leaf caterpillars, semiloopers, caseworms, leaf miners, leaf beetles and their larvae, termites,
or orthoptera. Damage can be counted or its area measured by counting the dots of a dot
matrix grid seen through the holes, by weighing paper of the same area, by photographic
methods and photometry, or, more expensively, by laboratory or portable electronic scanning
and area integration devices, such as the Lincor. With these, the degree of contrast to be
measured can be selected. The area of undamaged leaf can be obtained from a length x
breadth x a constant formula.
Seeds, grain, and fruit : Damaged seed, seed heads, and cobs; exit holes; and unfilled
grain panicles, or white heads in rice are counted. In larger fruit, the area of damage can be
measured. Damage to coffee, cacao, cotton, fruit, coconut, etc. is often assessed this way.
Roots : Root length and volume or dry weight of damaged and undamaged fibrous roots
are used to assess pest attack. Whole roots, samples, or even sections of the root mass, if
a correction factor has been calculated, can be used. Damage to tuberous roots is measured
by counting lesions or areas of damage on the surface or from a cut section.
Amount of by-product : The presence or amount of insect product, such as borer excreta
or aphid or planthopper honeydew, may be used to quantify pest attack.
Time to sample and method to use
The best time to sample pests or crop damage usually is when pests will have the
maximum effect on the economic crop yield. This may be at a critical event in pest
development, such as first egg appearance or adult emergence. or at a critical growth stage
of the crop, such as at germination or early tillering.
Scores or rating scales
For quicker and easier assessment, or because of the difficulty of counting great numbers
or complicated areas of damage, both pests and their damage are often grouped into grades,
or scales (Standard evaluation system for rice, IRRI 1980) or given scores or ratings. Scales
may be arithmetic (grades 1, 2, and 3 being 0- 10, 11- 20, 21 -30, etc.) or geometric
(logarithmic: 0 (really 1)- 10, 11 - 100, 101-1,000, etc.). Grades and scores can be added,
averaged, and analyzed, but they are discontinuous and finite and may not be normally
distributed, needing transformation before analysis.
Pest or damage frequency distribution
The frequency distribution of pests or damage (the number of samples of different sizes)
should be known before a sampling plan is designed or data analyzed. A preliminary survey
will show whether pests or damage are distributed in a regular pattern, at random, or in
clumps. The number of zero counts and the average number of pests per sample are important.
If the frequency distribution is nonnormal, parametric statistics, and hence standard errors,
confidence limits, analyses of variance, and regressions will not be valid.
43
Number and size of samples

Factors such as ease of sampling, accessibility, and time and money available for
sampling should be considered. There are formulae for calculating sample size from the
variance, cost, etc. The purpose of the sample is important. Is it descriptive and qualitative,
or quantitative but only preliminary? Is it to give relative results or an exact economic
assessment on a valuable crop?
Type of sampling : Different types of sampling include randum, satisfied randum, vacuum
sequential, etc.
If the basic statistics of the pest or damage population are known, sequential sampling
is useful in deciding whether or not to control. Sample size depends on the population
found. Upper and lower limits are specified and sampling continued until the number of
pests found goes above or below those limits. The method is described by Onsager (1976).
Sampling techniques for some important crop pests
Some commonly used sampling techniques employed for some of the important crop
pests are summarized in Table 1. However, these may be suitably modified keeping in view
the objectives and degree of precision required.
Table 1.
Crop
1
Sampling techniques for major insect pests of some crops
Pest
2
Economic threshold
3
Method of sampling
4
2 nymphs/leaf or yellowing
and curling of 20% leaves
from margins.
Count leafhopper nymphs from underside

of three fully developed leaves in the
upper canopy of each of 20 random plants
or count leaves showing yellowing
and curling from margins and healthy
leaves of 20 random plants in a field.
Whitefly (Bemisia tabaci)
6-8 adults/leaf
Count whitefly adults as above.
Spotted bollworm (Earias spp.)
10% drooping shoots or

5-10% infested fruiting
bodies
Count drooping shoots and healthy shoots

of 25 random plants or examine all green
fruiting bodies of the above plants for spotted
bollworm induced holes or damage.
Pink bollworm
( Pectinophora gossypiella)

bodies
Count rosetted flowers and examine all

fruiting bodies for damage by pink
bollworm on 25 random plants.
American bollworm
( Helicoverpa armigera)

Examine all fruiting bodies of 20-25 random
bodies or one larva/2 plants. plants for the pest damage and also count
number of larvae present.
Aphid ( Aphis gossypii)
10-15% infested plants
Examine presence of aphid or its symptoms

on 20-25 random plants.
Thrips (Thrips tabaci)
10 thrips/leaf or 25%
infested plants
Same as for aphid
Cotton Leaf hopper (jassid)

( Amrasca biguttula biguttula)
Paddy
a) At earing stage
5-15 insects/hill
Green leafhopper (Nephotettix
nigropictus & N. virescens)/
white backed plant hopper
( Sogatella furcifera )/brown
leafhopper (Nilaparvata lugens )
44
Select 5 micro-plots of 1m2 each in a field

and shake vigorously plants in 5 hills/plot
or shake vigorously 25 random plants
and count leafhopper fallen on water.
b)
Sugarcane
At flowering stage
Stem borer
( Scirpophaga incertulas)
Same as above
5-10% plants with deadCount infested and healthy tillers in 25
hearts or 2% white ears or random plants.
one egg mass or moth/m2 .
Leaf-folder
( Cnaphalocrocis medinalis )
2 damaged leaves/ plant

or one larva/hill
Count infested and healthy plants among

25 random plants or count number of
larvae in 25 plants.
Root weevil
( Hydronomidius molitor )
2 grubs/hill
Same as above
Rice gundhi bug

( Leptocorisa acuta)
1-2 insects/hill
Count the insect on 25 random plants.
Early shoot borer

( Chilo infuscatellus )
Dead hearts in 15-20%

tillers
From 5 random rows in a field, examine

100 tillers/row for dead-hearts.
Top borer
( Scirpophaga excerptalis )
Dead hearts in 10% tillers

or 5% dead hearts in the
ratoon crop
Drying of 10% canes
Same as for early shoot borer
3-5 insects/leaf
Count pyrilla nymphs and adults on 10

random plants taking 6 (2 upper, 2 middle
and 2 lower) leaves/plant.
Count nymphs and adults on 20-25
random plants.
Gurdaspur borer
( Acigona steniella )
Pyrilla ( Pyrilla perpusilla)
Black bug ( Cavelerius sweetii) 25 insects/plant
Count dried-up and healthy canes as above.
Sorghum Shoot fly (Atherigona soccata )
Gram
a)
After one week of crop

germination
One egg/plant or presence

of eggs on 5% plants
Examine 30 plants for the presence

of eggs.
b)
After two weeks of

germination
Dead-hearts in 15% plants
Examine 30 plants for the presence of

eggs or count dead hearts.
Stem borer (Chilo partellus)
Symptoms of damage (i.e.

Examine 30 plants for damage
dead hearts, shot holes in
symptoms.
leaves, unfilled ear head etc.)
Sorghum midge
( Contarinia sorghicola )
One midge/ear head at

50% flowering
Aphid ( Rhopalosiphum maidis ) 10-20% infested plants or

14 aphids/central shoot
Painted bug (Bagrada hilaris ) One insect/meter
row length
Gram pod borer
One larva/meter
row length
Count gall midge adults on 50 random

plants in the morning.
Examine 100 random plants in a field.
Count painted bug in one meter row
length from 20 random sites in a field.
Count larvae in one meter row length from
10-20 random sites in a field.
Okra
Leafhopper
( Amrasca biguttula biguttula )
2-5 nymphs/leaf
Same as in the case of cotton.
Tomato
Fruit borer
One larva/m2
Count larvae in 1m2 micro plot from 10

random sites in a field.
45
SUGGESTED READING
Atwal, A.S. and Singh, B. 1990. Pest Population and Assessment of Crop Losses . Indian
Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi.
Binns, M.R. and Nyrop, J.P. 1992. Sampling insect populations for the purpose of IPM
decision making. Ann. Rev. Ent. 37 : 427-453.
Cammell, M.E. and Way, M.J. 1987. Forecasting and monitoring. In: Burn, A.J., Coaker,
T.H. and Jepson, P.C. (eds.), Integrated Pest Management . Academic Press, Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich Publishers, London, pp. 1-26.
Chiarappa L, ed. (1971). Crop Loss Assessment Methods : FAO Manual on the Evaluation
and Prevention of Losses by Pests, Diseases, Weeds . Food and Agriculture Organization
and Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International, Slough, UK. 123 p.
Cochran, W.G. 1977. Sampling Techniques, New York: Wiley 3 rd edn.
Gage, S.H., Whalon, M.E. and Miller, D.J. 1982. Pest event scheduling system for biological
monitoring and pest management. Environ. Ent. 11 (6) : 1127-1133.
Kuno, E. 1991. Sampling and analysis of insect population. Ann. Rev. Ent. 36 : 285-304.
Luttrell, R.G., Fitt, G.P., Ramalho, F.S. and Sugonyaev, E.S. 1994. Cotton pest management:
Part-I. A worldwide perspective. Ann. Rev. Ent. 39 : 517-526.
Morris, R.F. 1960. Sampling insect populations. Ann. Rev. Ent. 5: 243-264.
Pedigo, L.P. 1996. Entomology and Pest Management (4 th edn.). Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey 07458, pp. 211-254.
Pedigo, L.P. and Buntin, C.D. (eds.) 1994. Handbook of Sampling Methods for Arthropods
in Agriculture . Boca Raton, USA, CRC Press Inc.
Saini, R.K. and Yadav, P.R. 2007. Sampling, surveillance and forecasting of pests. In :
Entomology: Novel Approaches, 2007, Eds. P.C. Jain and M.C. Bhargava, New India
Publishing Agency, New Delhi.
Southwood, T.R.E. 1978. Ecological Methods. London: Chapman and Hall. 2nd edn.
Thankappan, M. 2001. Access to satellite data for time-critical applications STAR and
SPOTLITE. First Australian Geospatial Information and Agriculture Conference, Sydney,
Australia, July 17-19, 2001. pp. 497-506.
Wang, Z.J., Zhang, A.B. and Li, D.M. 2003. Applied approaches and progress in the use of
remote sensing techniques in insect ecology. Entomological Knowledge 40 (2) : 97-100.
Zhai, B.P. 1999. Tracking angels: 30 years of radar entomology. Acta Entomologica Sinica
42 (3) : 315-326.
46
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS AND ASSESSMENT

OF LOSSES DUE TO ARTHROPOD PESTS
IN KHARIF VEGETABLES
S. S. Sharma
CCS.Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar
Arthropod pests are the major constraints to agricultural production. A large number of
insect and mite pests attack vegetable crops during all stages of growth- seedling to storage.
Of these only about two dozen have economic importance across agro- ecological zones.
Some more important species include leafhopper (Amrasca biguttula biguttula), shoot and
fruit borer ( Earias vittella ) and red spider mite ( Tetranychus urticae ) in okra; shoot and fruit
borer ( Leucinodes orbonalis ), lace bug ( Urentius hysterricellus), whitefly ( Bemisia tabaci ),
leaf webber ( Eublemma olivacea ) and hadda beetles (Epilachna spp) in brinjal; fruit fly
(Bactrocera cucurbitae ) and red pumpkin beetle ( Raphidopalpa foveicollis) in cucurbitaceous
crops; termite (Odontotermes obesus ), thrips (Thrips tabaci ), whitefly ( Bemisia tabaci ) and
yellow mite ( Polyphagotarsonemus latus ) in capsicum.
INSECT-PESTS OF OKRA
Leafhopper : Amrasca biguttula biguttula (Ishida)
F : Cicadellidae
O : Hemiptera
SO : Homoptera
Nature of damage : Both nymphs and adults suck cell sap usually from lower surface
of the leaves and inject toxic saliva. Infested leaves turn yellow and curl upwards and become
cup shape. In case of severe infestation, the leaves become brick red, brittle and finally drop
down. This pest is active throughout the year except in severe winter when only adults are
seen.
Economic Threshold (ET) : 4.66 leafhoppers per plant (Faleiro and Rai, 1988), 3 nymphs
per leaf/plant (Bolano, 1997), 2 nymphs per leaf (Agarwal et al., 2000).
Loss : Depending upon the crop season yield losses due to this pest can range from
63.4 to 88.1 per cent in Haryana (Sharma et al ., 2001) and 54 -66 per cent in Karnataka
(Krishnaiah, 1980).
Mealybug ( Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley)
F : Psudococcidae
O : Hemiptera
Nature of damage : Both nymphs and adults suck the cell sap from the lower side of
the leaves or from the shoots. The infested plants remain stunted and finally dry away.
Under severe infestation there is a heavy loss to the crop. The male adults are not harmful to
the crop.
Blister beetle ( Mylabris pustulata ) in okra
F : Meloidae
O : Coleoptera
Nature of damage : The adult beetles are the only feeding stage .The beetles feed on
flower petals, anthers and fruit by scratching the surface.
Shoot and fruit borer : Earias vittella (Fabricius)
F : Noctuidae
O : Lepidoptera
Nature of damage : In the early stage of the crop larvae bore into tender shoots and
tunnel downward. The growing tip is killed; shoots droop down and side shoots emerge.
Later on when fruiting bodies appear caterpillars bore in the flower buds and fruits. The
damaged buds drop down and the fruits get curved from the point of injury. The larva enters
the fruit and feeds on the developing seeds. The damaged fruits become unfit for consumption.
47
Economic Threshold (E.T.) : 5.3 % infestation of fruits (Dhandapani, 1985) or infested

plant per meter row.
Loss : There is a heavy loss in seed production. Yield loss reported by different workers
is 28.3 per cent in Haryana (Sharma et al., 1993), 38.43 per cent in UP (Satpathy and Rai,
1998), 22.79 - 50.52 per cent in Punjab (Brar et al., 1994), and 54.04 per cent in Rajasthan
(Chowdhury and Dadheech, 1989).
Fruit borer : Helicoverpa armigera
Nature of damage : The larvae feed on flowers and pods by making holes in them.
Loss : About 22 per cent fruit damage in Himachal Pradesh has been recorded by Raj et
al. (1993).
Red spider mite : Tetranychus urticae (Linnaeus)
F : Tetranichidae
O : Acarina
Nature of damage : Larvae, nymphs and adults suck cell sap. Large-scale webbing is
done on the leaves, which creates hindrance in normal growth. Minute white spots appear
on the leaves due to feeding by this pest, which is active from March to October.
Loss : 19.5 to 24.7 per cent losses in yield of green okra fruits.
INSECT PESTS OF BRINJAL
Shoot and fruit borer: Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee F : Pyralidae
O : Lepidoptera
Nature of damage : Newly hatched caterpillars bore into petioles, midribs, tender shoots
and fruits. Damaged twigs dry and the growing point of shoots droop down. Later on, the
larvae attack flower buds and fruits. Such fruits show exist holes.
Loss : Loss reported by different workers is 63 Haryana (Dhankhar el al., 1977), 50 per cent in
Tamil Nadu (Srinivasan and Gowder, 1969), 48 per cent in Maharashtra (Mote, 1981), 11.1-47.18 in
(Punjab Gill and Chadha, 1979), 54 -66 per cent Karnataka (Krishnaiah, 1980), 25.82 - 92.50 per cent
in Rajasthan (Kumar and Shukla, 2002) and 20.54 per cent in UP (Mall el al., 1992).
Hadda beetle : Henosepilachlna vigintioctopunctata (Fabricius),
Epilachna dodecastigma
F : Coccinelidae
O : Coleoptera
Nature of damage : Both grubs and adults cause damage by feeding on chlorophyll of
leaf tissues, leaving parallel bands of uneaten tissues in between. Its peak activity is from
April to May and September to October.
Brinjal lacewing bug ( Urentius hysterricellus ) F :
Nature of damage : Both nymphs are adults suck the sap from the leaves causing
yellowish spots which together with the black scale-like excreta deposited by them. The
nymphs feed gregariously on the lower surface of the leaf and adults are found feeding and
moving individually on lower and upper side of the leaf.
Brinjal stem borer : Euzophera perticella Ragonot
F : Phycitidae O : Lepidoptera
Nature of damage : The young larvae feed for a few minutes on exposed parts of plants
before boring into the stem where it feeds on the pith by making longitudinal tunnels. Damaged
plants wither and dry away. Peak period of activity is May-June.
INSECT PESTS AND MITE OF CUCURBITACEOUS CROPS
Melon fruit fly : Bactrocera cucurbitae
F : Tephritidae
O : Diptera
Nature of damage : Newly hatched maggots feed on the fruit pulp. Attacked fruits can
be identified by the presence of brown juice oozing out of the puncture made by females for
egg laying. Such fruits become distorted, rot and fall prematurely.
Loss : In bitter gourd a loss of 60- 80 per cent in HP (Gupta et al., 1992); in Cucumber,
60- 80 per cent in Assam (Borah, 1996), 83% in HP (Gupta et al., 1992); in Little gourd 63%
48
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS OF INSECT-PESTS' DAMAGE IN VEGETABLES
Diamond-back moth
Red mite in okra
Leafhopper in okra
Tomato fruit borer
Brinjal aphid
Red pumpkin beetle
Brinjal shoot & fruit borer
Hadda beetle
Fruit fly in bittergourd
Aphid on radish
Onion thrips
Cabbage butterfly
Blue butter fky in pea
in Gujarat (Patel, 1994), Muskmelon 76 -100% in Rajasthan (Pareek and Kavadia, 1994). In
snake gourd 63 per cent in Assam (Borah and Dutta, 1997) and in Sponge gourd 50 per cent
in AP ( Gupta et al., 1992) has been reported.
Red pumpkin beetle : Rhaphidopalpa joveicollis (Lucas)
F : Chrysomelidae
O : Coleoptera
Nature of damage : Young grubs feed on roots and underground portion of host plants
and fruits touching the soil. Adult beetles feed voraciously on leaf lamina in a circular fashion
preferring young seedlings. Main period of activity of this pest is from March--October (highest
peak in April-June).
Leaf miner
F : Chrysomelidae
O : Diptera
Nature of damage : The maggots make mine inside the leaf tissues. The zigzag
serpentine white lines are visible from the upper surface of the leaf. The photosynthesis is
hampered due to these lines.
Chlli
Yellow mite ( Polyphagotarsonemus latus)
O : Acarina
It is commonly known as the yellow mite and is a polyphagous pest. It is a minute, very
active and can only be seen with magnifying lens moving very fast on lower and upper
surface of tender leaves. Both nymphs and adults scrap the terminal leaves and auxiliary
leaves and suck cell sap. The damaged leaves become narrow with twisted and elongated
petiole. Overall size of the leaf increase in size and downwards boat shaped curling of
damaged leaves takes place.
Economic Threshold (ET) : One mite per leaf (Ukey et al ., 1999)
Loss : As high as 34.14 per cent in AP (Ahmad el al., 1987)
Thrips (Scirtolhrips dorsalis)
F : Thripidae
O : Thysanoptera
Nature of damage : Both nymphs and adults lacerate the leaf tissues and suck the sap
oozing out of it. White spots are formed on the leaves due to their feeding.
ET: 2 thrips per leaf (Nelson and Natarajan, 1994)
Loss : Crop loss of 11.8 per cent Assam (Borah and Langthasa, 1995), 50 per cent in
Tamil Nadu (Nelson and Natarajan, 1994), >90 per cent (chilli pepper) in Karnataka (Kumar
et al. 1995), 11 -32 per cent (sweet pepper) in Karnataka (Kumar et al. 1995).
EXTENT OF LOSSES IN VEGETABLE CROPS : The pest status or population varies
from place to place in different agro climatic conditions. The biotic factors and abiotic factors
influence the pests and the extent of damage caused by them.
METHODS OF ESTIMATING CROP LOSSES DUE TO INSECT PESTS IN VEGETABLE CROPS
1. Mechanical Protection : Crop is raised under net, wire gauge or cotton cloth depending
upon the crop. The yield under such enclosures is compared with that of infested crop
under similar conditions. The mechanical protection may change the microclimate of the
crop and affect the yield which is the main drawback of this method.
2. Chemical Protection : Crop is protected by chemical insecticides. Yield of the treated
plants is compared with infestated plants having the same soil and fertility status. This
is the most popular technique.
3. Comparison of Yield in Different Fields Having Different Degrees of Pest Incidence :
Yield is recorded per unit area in different fields carrying different degrees of pest
infestation. The correlation between the crop yield and degree of infestation is used to
estimate the damage.
49
4. Comparison of Average Yield of Individual Plants : The pest incidence and the yield
of individual plant is recorded and loss in yield is calculated by comparing the average
yield of healthy plants and various degree of infested plants.
5. Average Damage Caused by Individual Insects : This method is easy for leaf feeding
insects. The amount of damage caused by different stages or age of the insect pest and
the exact nature and amount of loss caused by them can be estimated.
6. Simulated Damage : Zhu et al. (1994) assessed the yield loss in cabbage caused by
lepidopterous complex consisting of Pieris rapae, Plutella xylostella, Spodoptera litura,
and Spodoptera exigua through simulated damage done by punch holes on cabbage
leaves with more than 90% accuracy.
SUGGESTED READING
Agarwal, N., Bhanot, J. P. and Sharma, S. S. 2000. Determination of economic threshold of
leafhopper, Amrasca biguttula biguttula (Ishida) on okra. JNKVV. Res.J. 34 (1 & 2) : 38-41.
Borah, S. R. and Dulta, S. K. 1997. Infestation of fruit fly in some cucurbitaceous vegetables.
J. agric. Sci. North East India 10 : 128-131.
Brar, K. S., Arora, S. K. and Gllai, T. R. 1994. Losses in fruit yield of okra due to Earias spp.
as influenced by dates of sowing and varieties. Journal of lnsect Science 7 : 133-135.
Faleiro, J. R. and Rai, S. 1988. Yield infestation relationship and economic injury level for
okra leafhopper management in India. Tropical Pest Management 34 : 27-30.
Kalra, V. K., Sharma, S. S. and Tehlan, S. K. 2006. Population dynamics of Hyadaphis
corianderi on different cultivars and varieties of coriander and seed yield losses caused
by it. Journal of Medicinal and Aromatic Plant Sciences 28 : 377-378.
Krishnaiah, K. 1980. Assessment of Crop Losses due to Pests and Diseases (Ed. H.C.
Govindu). UAS Tech. Series. No. 33 : 259-267.
Kumar, N.K.K. 1995. Yield loss in chilli and sweet pepper due to Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood
(Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Pest Managemenl in Horlicuitural Ecosystems. 1 : 61-69.
Mall, N. P., Pandey, R. S., Singh, S. V. and Singh, S. K. 1992. Seasonal incidence of
insect-pests and estimation leaf losses caused by shoot and fruit borer on brinjal. Indian
Journal of Entomology 54 : 241-247.
Parsad , R. and Singh J. (2007).Estimation of yield loss in okra caused by the red spider
mite ( Tetranychus urticae Koch) under the influence of two different dates of sowing.
Indian J. Ent. 69 (2) : 127-132.
Saha, N. N. 1982. Estimation of losses in yield of fruits and seeds of okra caused by the
spotted bollworms, Earias. spp. unpubl. Ph.D. thesis. Punjab Agril. Univ., Ludhiana.
Sharma, S. S., Kalra, V. K. and Kaushik H. D. 2001. Assessment of yield losses caused by
leafhopper, Amrasca biguttula biguttula Ishida on different varieties/cultivar of okra.
Haryana J. hort. Sci . 30 (1 & 2) : 128-13.
Shivalingaswamy, T. M, Satpathy, S. and Banerjee, M. K. 2002. Estimation of crop losses
due to insect pests in vegetables. In Resources management in plant protection Vol. 1
Ed .by B.Sarath Babu, K.S.Varaprasad, K. Anitha, R.D.V.J.Prasada Rao,S.K.Chakrabarty
and P.S.Chandurkar Pblished by Plant Protection Association of India, NPPTI Campus,
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad (AP). pp. 27-31.
50
DIAGNOSITIC SYMPTOMS AND ASSESSMENT

OF LOSSES DUE TO INSECT-PESTS
IN WINTER VEGETABLES
P. C. Sharma
Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture
CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur-176 062
The vegetables form an essential component of the human diet especially in case of
India and some South Asian countries. India ranks second in the production of vegetables
after China and occupy 5.993 million hectares area and the total annual production is around
90.83 metric tonnes (Gopalakrishnan, 2007). There is a need of around 5-6 million tones of
food to feed 1.3 billion India population by 2020 AD. The pest problems on vegetables can
be more serious because of the favourable conditions which are provided for multiplication
by the present methods of cultivation. The major constraints in vegetable production include
the extensive crop losses due to increased pest infestation directly or due to viral diseases
vectored by insects. The extent of crop losses in vegetables varies with the plant type,
location, damage potential of the pest involved and cropping season.The crop losses to the
tune of 40 per cent have observed in vegetable crops.
Cabbage and cauliflower :
Cabbage caterpillar, Pieris brassicae (Linnaeus) : It is distributed all along the
Himalayan regions. It is an oligophagous pest with a limited host range of cruciferous crops
like cabbage, cauliflower, radish, turnip, brassica oilseeds etc.
The caterpillars feed gregariously during early stage and disperse in the fourth instar.
The young larvae scrape the leaf surface whereas the old larvae eat up the leaves from the
margin inwards leaving the main veins only. They skeletonize leaves and bore into heads of
cabbage and cauliflower.
Diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus) : It is cosmopolitan in distribution
and enjoys worldwide distribution. It is a major pest of all cruciferous vegetable crops and
cabbage and cauliflower are major host crops.
Larva feeds on foliage and causes serious damage by defoliation. First instar larve mine
epidermal surface of leaves producing typical white patches. Second instar and other instars
feed externally making holes on the leaves and soil them with excreta. Heavy infestations
leave little more than the leaf veins. The larvae also enter the head/ curd affecting the
production and the quality of produce.
Cabbage head borer, Hellula undalis (Fabricius) : Cabbage head borer has world wide
distribution. It is one of the serious pests of cruciferous crops. The larvae attack cabbage,
cauliflower, radish, knol-khol and the weed, Gynadropsis pentaphylla (Capparidaceae).The
pest breeds throughout the year but becomes visible when the cruciferous crops are sown.
The caterpillars first mine into the leaves. Later on, they feed on the leaf surface, sheltered
within the silken passages. As they grow bigger, they bore into the heads of cauliflower and
cabbage. When the attack is severe, the plants are riddled with worms and the heads look
deformed.
51
Leaf webber, Crocidolomia pavonana (F.) : It is distributed throughout India, Southeast Asia, Australia and Africa. Leaf webber is a serious pest of cabbage, radish, mustard
and other crucifers.
The larvae web the leaves with silken strands and feed on the lower surface of the leaves
completely skeletonising them. In cauliflower, larvae nibble the growing tip of seedlings and
bore into the curd resulting in discoloration of the curd. Even a single mature larva per plant
is capable of inflicting economic loss to cabbage at pre- and post-heading stages.
Cabbage flea beetles : Phyllotreta cruciferae (Goeze), P. chotanica Duviv, P. birmanica
Harold, P. oncera Maulik, P. downesi Baly: The cabbage flea beetles attack almost all the
cruciferous plants in Europe, erstwhile USSR, North and South Amercia, Australia, Japan,
and India. The common field crops like mustard, raya, toria, and vegetables like radish,
turnip, cabbage, cauliflower and knol-khol are severely damaged by adult beetles. Some
ornamental plants and flowers are also attacked.
The adults mostly feed on the leaves by making innumerable round holes in the host
plants. The old eaten away leaves dry up, while the young leaves are rendered unfit for
consumption. A peculiar kind of decaying odour is emitted by the cabbage plants attacked
by this pest.
Cabbage aphid, Brevicoryne brassicae (Linnaeus) : Aphids in general have a very high
rate of reproduction and a short life-span as a result of which they are serious pests of many
economic plants. Cosmopolitan in distribution, this is a pest of cabbage, cauliflower, radish
and many other crucifers, appearing in the cold season.
Both nymphs and adults suck cell sap from the plants especially the tender parts resulting
in devitalization of the plants. They also produce honeydew, which attract sooty moulds
resulting in the hindrance in photosynthesis. In case of severe infestation plants may
completely dry up and die away. Feeding damage from large numbers of aphids can kill
seedlings and young transplants. On larger plants, damage results in curling and yellowing
of leaves, stunted plant growth, and deformed heads. White cast skin will be present at the
base of the plant.
Cabbage semi-looper, Thysanopulsia orichalcea (Fabricius), Autographa nigrisigna
(Walker) : These two species are widely distributed in north western India and are minor
pests of cabbage, cauliflower and other winter vegetables. They are polyphagous and attack
a number of plants, including groundnut and sunflower.
The caterpillars are plump and pale green. They cause damage by biting round holes
into cabbage leaves. On walking they form characteristic half-loops and are often seen mixed
with cabbage caterpillars.
Cutworms : Cutworms attack a wide variety of cultivated plants. Five species of cutworms
namely, Agrotis ipsilon, A.flammatra , A.segetum , A.interacta and A. spinifera and A. ipsilon
have been reported from India. The larva of A. ipsilon is commonly called greasy cutworm,
while that of A. segetum is known as black cutworm. The young larvae feed on the epidermis
of the leaves. As they grow, their habit changes. During the daytime they live in cracks and
crevices in the ground and come out during night and cut the plants at ground level. The cut
branches are sometimes seen to have been dragged into holes where leaves are eaten.
They generally consume a little part of the plant parts and move on to attack other seedlings.
Root crops (radish, carrot and turnip) :
Aphids : Aphids feed on radish foliage include cabbage aphid, Brevicoryne brassicae
52
mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi , peach green aphid, Myzus persicae and Toxoptera aurantii
(Boyer de Fonsco.) The first one prefers cabbage and cauliflower; second one is a serious
pest of crucifers. M. persicae and T. aurantii are highly polyphagous pests having a wide
range of host plants. The colonies of aphids consisting of various stages of nymphs and
adults suck the cell sap from tender stems and underside of leaves. The affected plant part
fades, curl and dry up. The damage caused by sucking the sap from pods adversely affects
the seed quality. In addition, the sooty mold which develops on the honeydew secreted by
the aphids interferes with the normal photosynthesis of the plants. Remove and destroy the
affected plant parts with aphids thereon.
Economic Threshold is 10 per cent of the plants having aphid incidence on the central
shoot in case of seed crop.
Mustard sawfly, Athalia lugens proxima (Klug.) : It is an oligophagous pest attacking
various winter cruciferous vegetables. The pest appears on radish leaves by the end of July
and the activity keeps on increasing and maximum in during September to December. The
larva is greenish-black and feeds on leaves. The damage is more pronounced on seedlings
as compared to grown up crop. This insect has a high degree of gustatory preference for
turnip crop.
Flea beetles, Phyllotreta cruciferae Goeze, P. chotanica Duvier : The flea beetles are
regular pests of crucifers. The adult beetles feed on the foliage by making holes. The damage
is more pronounced at seedling stage.
Leafy vegetables : Spinach is attacked by blue beetle and different species of aphids
which are described below :
Amaranthus weevil, Hypolixus truncatalus (F.) : Both adult and grubs cause damage.
Grubs tunnel within the stems and branches feeding on internal tissues. Adults feed on
tender leaves and stem but the damage is caused by adult is negligible.
Blue beetle, Altica caerulescens (Baly) : Blue beetle has been reported as a pest of
cabbage and spinach. Besides it it has been recorded as a minor pest on strawberry and
plums. The grubs feed on tender cotyledon leaves as well as the fleshy older ones. Adults
nibble the leaf margins causing very little damage. On hatching, the freshly emerged grubs
scrap and feed on chlorophyll containing tissues, later they mine inside the leaves, feed on
mesophyll tissues and pupate therein.
Aphids : Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach), Myzus persicae (Sulzer) and Hyadaphis
indobrassicae (Das) have been found infesting leaves and causing damage to the crop; the
last one being more common. These aphids are polyphagous in habit. The damage caused
by these aphids by sucking the plant sap results in yellowing of leaves and the infested
leaves become unfit for consumption.
Pea
Pea leaf miner, Chromatomyia horticloa (Goureau) : Pea leaf miner is found throughout
the temperate region of the world. It is a polyphagous pest feeding on leguminous crops,
cucurbits, crucifers, tomato and lettuce. The larvae make prominent whitish tunnels in the
leaves. If the attacked leaves are held against bright light, the minute slender larvae can be
seen feeding within the tunnels. The large numbers of tunnels made by the larvae interfere
with photosynthesis and proper growth of plants.
Pea stem fly, Ophiomyia phaseoli (Tryon) : It is also a polyphagous pest and feeds on
almost all parts of beans, gram and pea. It is widely distributed in India, Srilanka, Philippines
53
and China. The maggots on emergence feed on leaf tissue at first but later on bore into the
terminal stems causing withering and ultimate drying of the affected shoots, thus reducing
the bearing capacity of the host plants. The adults also cause damage by puncturing the
leaves and the injured parts turn yellow. The damage is more serious on seedlings.
Pea pod borer, Etiella zinckenella Treitschke : It is serious pest of green pea and
lentils in northern India and also attacks other pulses in various parts of the country. The
caterpillars bore inside the green pods and feed within, generally one caterpillar is found in
one pod. The damaged pod has a large emergence hole made by the pupating larva.
Bean aphid, Aphis craccivora Genn. : Young colonies of A. craccivora concentrate on
growing points of plants and are often tended by ants. This symbiotic association with ants
helps in dispersal of aphids from plant to plant. Parthenogenetic reproduction is common
and noticed throughout the year. Both nymphs and adults suck the sap from the ventral
surface of tender leaves, growing shoots, flower stalks and pods. The infested leaves turn
pale yellow, the shoots wither, flower buds fall off whereas the pods shrivel and become
deformed. Yield losses are severe when aphid colonies concentrate on the growing tips of
the plants. Indirect damage is caused due to the production of honeydew, which hampers
normal photosynthesis. This aphid is also known to transmit several plant viruses, leading
to complete crop losses.
Onion and garlic
Onion thrips, Thrips tabaci Lindemann : It is highly polyphagous with a wide range of
host plants in India. Besides onion and garlic, it attacks cole crops, cotton, pea, cucurbits,
tobacco, tomato, turnip, pine apple and ornamentals like carnation, lilies and roses, etc.
The nymphs and adults feed by lacerating the tissues and imbibing the oozing cell sap. On
onion and garlic, they are usually congregated at the base of leaf or in the flowers. Infested
onion develops a spotted appearance on the leaves; subsequently turning into pale white
blotches. In case of severe attack, leaves dry from tip to downward. Development of onion or
garlic bulb is affected to a greater extent. Thrips may also serve as vectors of some viruses
and other plant diseases, especially the fungus, purple blotch (Alternaria porri).
Onion maggot, Delia antiqua (Meigen) : Small maggots burrow down into the underground
portion of stem and often into the onion bulb. Each maggot carves out a small cavity, which
results in rotting of the bulbs in storage. Due to burrowing action, the plant withers off. The
damage predisposes the plants to soft rot. The damage caused by the pest is generally
followed by the attack of fungus, Bacillus carotovorus , causing soft rot of onions. Larger
onions may survive an attack but the injured bulbs will often rot in the field or in storage. The
attacked plants become yellowish brown from tip downwards.
Leaf eating caterpillars : Greasy cutworm, Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel), tobacco
caterpillar, Spodoptera littoralis , Fabricius and lucerne caterpillar, S. exigua (Hubner) are
sporadic pests that cause severe damage especially to the seedlings. They are polyphagous
pests having a wide range of host plants. Caterpillars are nocturnal in habit. Those of Agrotis
ipsilon remain in soil during day time, come out at night and cut the seedlings at ground
level. Caterpillars of Spodoptera species feed gregariously and move in swarms destroying
the young seedlings and later feeding voraciously on leaves. During day time the caterpillars
hide in hollow tubular leaves of onion but their presence is indicated by leaves and faecal
matter.
Another caterpillar found feeding on these crops is gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera
(Hubner). Though a minor pest of onion, it has been reported causing havoc in onion crop
54
raised for seed purpose. The caterpillars attack the umbels and feed on inflorescences,
later they move downwards, cut the pedicels of flowers and feed on the stalks. When full
fed, the caterpillars bore into the stalks, enter scape and pupate therein.
SUGGESTED READING
Atwal, A.S. and Dhaliwal, G.S. 2005. Agricultural Pests of South Asia and their Management.
Kalyani Publishers, Ludhiana.
Brar, K.S. and Kaur, Ramandeep 2005. Advances in integrated pest management of vegetable
crops (cucurbits, pea, onion and garlic). In : Advances in the Integrated Pest Management
of Horticultural, Spices and Plantation Crops (eds. Chhillar, B.S., Kalra, V.K., Sharma,
S.S. and Ram Singh) pp. 86-92.
Butani, D.K. and Jotwani, M.G. 1984. Insects in Vegetables . Colour Publications, Mumbai:
356p.
Chadha, K.L. and Nayar, G.C. 1994. Advances in Horticulture . Malhotra Publishing House,
New Delhi.
Gopalakrishnan, T.R. 2007. Vegetable Crops . New India Publishing Agency, New Delhi.
Gupta, H.C.L., Ameta, O.P. and Chechani, V.K. 2005. Management of Insect-Pests of
Horticultural Crops . Agrotech Publishing Academy, Udaipur.
Jotwani, M.G. and Butani, Dhamo K. 1977. Insect-pests of leguminous vegetables and their
control. Pesticides 11 (10) : 35-38.
Nair, M.R.G.K. 1975. Insects and Mites of Crops in India , Indian Council of Agricultural
Research, New Delhi.
Regupathy, A.; Palanisamy, S.; Chandramohan, N and Gunathilagiraj, K.1997. A Guide on
Crop Pests . Sooriya Desktop Publishers, Coimbatore.
Saxena, J.D.; Rai, S.; Srivastava, K.M. and Sinha, S.R. 1989. Resistance in the filed
population of the diamondback moth to some commonly used synthetic pyrethroids.
Indian J. Ent. 51 : 265-68.
Shivalingaswamy, TM and Satpathy, S. 2007. Integrated pest management in vegetable crops.
In : Entomology: Novel Approaches (eds Jain, P.C. and Bhargava, M.C.), New India
Publishing Agency, New Delhi, pp 353-375.
Srivastava, K.P. 2002. A Text Book of Applied Entomology . Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi.
Srivastava, K.P. and Butani, D.K. 1998. Pest Management in Vegetables . Research
Periodicals and Book Publishing House, USA.
Sun, C.N. 1990. Insecticide resistance in diamondback moth what can we do with existing
formulation? In : 2 nd Intl. Workshop on Management of Diamondback moth and other
Crucifer Pests, Abstract Volume, AVRDC, Shanhua, Taiwan.
Vastrad, A. S., Lingappa, S., Basavanagoud, K. 2004. Monitoring insecticide resistance in
diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.) in Karnataka, India. Resistant Pest
Management Newsletter 13 (2) : 22-24.
55
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS AND ASSESSMENT OF LOSSES

DUE TO WHITEGRUBS IN VARIOUS CROPS
Swaroop Singh
Network Coordinator
AINP on Whitegrubs & Other Soil Arthropods, Department of Entomology,
(Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University)
Agricultural Research Station, Durgapura, Jaipur
Whitegrubs belonging to family Scarabaeidae of order coleoptera are most injurious of
all soil pests. They are major constraint to the cultivation of rainy season ( Khairf) crops and
are pests of national importance. The severity of the damage by whitegrubs is further
accentuated by the difficulty in their management as much of their life is subterranean. The
immature stages, larvae (grubs) eat the roots of plants so they are also known as root
grubs. The adults (beetles) emerge out of the soil after the premonsoon/monsoon showers
in the month of May & June so they are also referred as May beetles or June beetles. Since
the adults eat the leaves of trees they are also termed as leaf chafers, chaffer beetles or
cock chafers.
The subterranean grubs actively feed on the living roots. Being polyphagous, they feed
on the roots of a wide variety of cultivated as well as uncultivated plants. The young grubs
after hatching orient towards the roots and start feeding on them. Consequent to feeding,
the plants show varying degree of yellowing; some get wilted and ultimately die. Such plants
can be easily pulled out. The crops with tap root system suffer more as compared to those
with adventitious root system. Almost all field crops grown during the rainy season ( kharif )
in India are damaged, viz., groundnut, sugarcane, pearlmillet, sorghum, cowpea, pigeonpea,
greengram, clusterbean, chilli upland paddy, maize, vegetables etc. The plantation crops
like tea and coffee suffer similar damage in their seedling and early growth stages.
The beetles like the grubs, are also polyphagous and feed on about 250 different types
of host trees. Sometimes the adults also cause economic damage to certain fruit, ornamental
and other economically important trees.
Groundnut : Groundnut is grown in kharif season (rainy season) in north India. It has
tap root system. Those crops having tap root system is highly susceptible to whitegrub. The
Holotrichia consanguinea is predominant species in north India. The grub finds loose, sandy
well drained soil to be quite suitable for its survival and multiplication. The beetles of H.
consanguinea emerge from soil during dusk after good pre-monsoon or monsoon rain. The
mated female starts egg laying within 2-3 days of mating. The newly hatched grubs are
creamy white in colour and may feed on organic matter for some time till they come in
contact with living roots. Second and third instar grubs cut the root of groundnut plant,
damaged plant show varying degree of yellowing; some get wilted and ultimately die. Such
plants can be easily pulled out. The damage due to whitegrubs is noticed when the crop
begins to dry up, either the whole area or in patches, after feeding by second and third instar
grubs stage in August. Even then, the actual cause of the damage is known only when the
soil is carefully removed around the root zone and the cut roots and grubs are seen. By
then, the grubs have fairly grown up and have traveled to a depth of 10-20 cm below the soil
surface. It is too late at this stage to take any preventive or curative control measures
56
against the pest. In endemic areas, the damage ranges from 20-80 per cent the presence of
one grub/m 2 may cause mortality of 80-100 per cent plants.
Pearlmillet : Kharif season pearlmillet suffers from whitegrub. It has adventitious root
system. The crops with adventitious root system suffer less as compared to those with tap
root system. Generally the damage by whitegrub in pearlmillet is reported to be about 20-30
per cent but some time in endemic areas, the damage is reported 80-100 per cent. Plants
damaged by grubs show varying degree of yellowing, wilting and ultimately die. The grub
feeds on all roots of plant so the root system is completely destroyed and such plants can
be easily pulled out.
Cucurbits : Cucurbits like watermelon, muskmelon, bittergourd, pumpkin etc. are heavily
damaged by whitegrubs. In north India two species of whitegrub are found i.e. H. consanguinea
and Maladera insanabilis. Maladera spp. has two generations in a year. It is noted that
adults start emerging in second week of March but peak emergence takes place from April
to early May. The beetles of second generation appear in the late June, July and August.
The average duration of life cycle of I & II generations of Maladera insanabilis are 60 and 224
days, respectively. The emergence of beetle takes place twice a year. Life cycle of the first
generation is completed within 60 days. After emergence beetles settle on the nearby host
plant like Lucerne, cucurbits or trees like rose wood, khejari, ber, babul etc. After mating,
females lay eggs in moist, loose soil near the root zone. Newly hatched grubs feeds on
organic matter and humus, while the second and third instars feed on cucurbit roots. The
grubs of M. insanabilis are smaller in size and more number of grubs can be seen feeding in
root zone of plant. Grubs cut the rootlets or roots of the plants. Such plants become yellow,
gradually wilt and ultimately die. The damaged plant can be easily pulled out from soil.
Cucurbit crops are damaged up to 40 per cent by the whitegrubs.
Moongbean : Moongbean has tape root system; it is highly damaged by whitegrub. The
second instar grubs cut the root of moongbean. The damaged plant show varying degree of
yellowing than wilt and ultimately die. Such plant can be easily pulled out. The damage
ranges from 20-80 per cent in the presence of one grub/m2. In endemic areas incidence of
whitegrub is 80-100 per cent in moongbean.
Vegetables : Vegetables grown during rainy season are damaged by various whitegrub
species in different part of the country. Rainy season vegetables like chilli, tomato, brinjal
etc. suffer more as compared to other crops. Grubs cut or feed on the roots of vegetables.
The plant becomes gradually yellow and ultimately dies. Such plants can be easily pulled
out. The damage symptoms of whitegrub are similar as termite. The damage ranges from
80-100 per cent.
Potato : The potato crop grown during summer as rainfed under long day conditions in
higher hills is more prone to the attack of whitegrubs. In Himachal Pradesh, about 8 species
of whitegrubs viz ; B. coriacea , M. furcicauda, A. dimidiate A. polita , A. rugosa , P. dionysius,
H. longipennis and Xylotrupes gideon (Linn.) are reported to damage potato in different areas
of district Shimla, Solan, Sirmour, Kullu, Mandi and Chamba. The most wide spread and
destructive species are B. coriacea, H. longipennis, Melolontha sp. and A. dimidiata. Initially
young grubs feed on mother tuber, roots of developing potato plants, but after rubber formation,
the older second instar and third instar grubs feed on the underground tubers by making
large, shallow and circular holes into them and thus rendering them unfit for marketing. They
57
live concealed while feeding on tubers and plants continue to grow normally without any
reflection of injury on aerial parts. The grubs of B. coriacea are smaller in size and more
number of grubs can seen feeding on a single tuber. This results in the formation of numerous
holes on all sides of tubers. However, in case of Melolontha sp., the grubs make large
circular hole in it. The damage has been observed to vary from 40-50 per cent, 17-28 per
cent and 23-24 per cent in Shimla, Mandi and Sirmour, respectively. In endemic pockets like
Shillaroo, upto 80 per cent infestation has been recorded.
Maize : In north India, 11 species of whitegrubs viz. M. furcicauda, M. nepalensis, A.
dimidiata, A. rufiventris, A. lineatopennis, P. dionysius, B. coriacea, L. stigma, H. longipennis,
Heteronychus robustus Arrow and Xylotrupes gideon (Linn.), have been observed causing
damage to maize during kharif season. The extent of damage and species composition
varies from place to place. On an average 10-35 per cent damage has been observed by
whitegrubs in low and mid hill areas. P. Dionysius and H. robustus cause maximum damage
in Kullu and Solan districts, whereas, maize grown along river bed areas of Beas in Sandhol
and Kheri areas suffer the most due to ravages of L. stigma . Certain areas of district Bilaspur
are also suffering from the attack of this pest. The symptom of injury is root pruning by
grubs, such plants show varying degree of yellowing, browning, wilting and eventually death.
The grubs destroy the root system completely and such plants can be easily pulled out.
There is uneven crop growth and the infested fields present a devastated appearance.
Peas : There are certain ecological niches providing environmental conditions congenial
for growing pea during kharif in higher hills. In Sangla Valley of Kinnaur (H.P.) whitegrubs
cause 20-25 per cent plant mortality in off season crop in the month of June-July. The major
species which were collected from different localities in Himachal Pradesh were H. longipennis,
B. coriacea, M. furcicauda and Anomala sp. The damage was most serious in fields located
in the vicinity of apple orchards. There was patchy growth in the infested fields and the
damaged plants showed varying degree of yellowing, browning and wilting. The population of
whitegrubs was very high and 4-5 grubs were found feeding on a single plant. The roots were
totally pruned and the infested plants can be pulled out easily. The pea crop fetches premium
price during off-season, hence whitegrub damage incurs heavy losses to farmers in this
area.
Cabbage : A melolonthid beetle is one of the most common cockchafer grub, occurring
commonly in cabbage fields at higher elevations (upto 2500 meters) in Baragran area of
Chotta Bhangal (H.P.). Apparently full fed larvae feed on cabbage roots after transplanting in
fields and the damage is so serious that it may lead to total failure of crop in certain fields.
The damage is most serious during July-August. Dying-off in field usually occurs as a result
of root feeding by this pest. The symptom of injury is root pruning by grubs; such plants
show distinct wilting, yellowing, browning and eventually death. The attacked plants show
stunted growth and can be easily pulled out. The larvae are large thick, and measure 45
mm.
Ginger : Ginger is mainly cultivated in district Sirmour and is a cash crop of that area.
Extensive survey was conducted during 2006-07 and in some localities upto 30 per cent
infestation was recorded. Five species were collected from ginger fields, out of which H.
longipennis and B. coriacea cause maximum damage. The damage is most serious during
September-October. There are no symptoms of grub attack on ginger foliage and only rhizomes
58
are attacked. The grubs make large holes in rhizomes and reduce market value of produce.
In 2006, on in average 10.8 per cent infestation was recorded in Sangrah area. Likewise in
2007, the incidence was more than 15 per cent in endemic areas of Sirmour district. The
healthy rhizomes of ginger sold @ Rs. 700-800/40 kg in market, however, white grub infested
rhizomes fetches nearly 50 per cent lesser price and are sold only @ Rs. 300-350/40 kg.
Sugarcane : Normally sugarcane planted crop is followed by one or two ratoons. The
long duration of the crop provides a sort of the monocropped stable agro-ecosystem for the
multiplication of magnitude of whitegrubs. In fact the first whitegrub infestation in any crop
in India was reported from sugarcane in 1956 in Dalmianagar area of South Bihar. The grubs
feed on the roots and rootlets of sugarcane below the soil surface and eat away and major
portion of the root system; some times they scoop the bottom portion of the cane stalk. In
case of severe infestation, the whole root system gets completely depleted, and this in turn
deprives the cane stalk from uptake of moisture and nutrient from soil, resulting in yellowing,
wilting and ultimately death of the plant, less than threshold infestation may lead to stunted
crop growth. The outer leaves dry up first and as the attack progresses, the entire shoot
dries up and gets dislodged easily. Besides, it also reduces the biomass production and the
commercial cane sugar of the crop. They also damage the clump of sugarcane, makes the
plant susceptible to lodging in high winds resulting in plants uprooting from the soil. It
severely reduces the yield of sugarcane.
In the initial stages the attack of the pest occurs in patches, but later if the infestation is
severe, the damage spreads to the whole field, each clump may harbour up to two dozen
grubs in its root system, and if all the clumps are seriously infested, the whole crop dries up
by August. In severe infestation, 80 per cent crop losses have been observed in sugarcane.
In case of light infestation, particularly in crops with good growth (where the root system is
already well developed before the infestation starts), signs of drying may be observed in the
initial stages, but by September the crop recovers by putting fresh rootlets. The early season
crop (October to January) is able to withstand the attack better than late-season crop or the
spring planted crop.
59
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS AND DAMAGE DUE TO

INSECT-PESTS IN SOME TROPICAL AND
SUB-TROPICAL FRUIT CROPS
G. S. Yadav and S. S. Sharma
A number of tropical and sub-tropical fruits are grown in different regions of India. The
most prominent among them are mango, citrus, guava, ber, jamun, sapota etc. All the fruit
trees are attacked by a number of insect-pests. It is very difficult to assess crop loss due to
pest infestation and the relationship is never linear but logarithmic. The diagnostic
characteristics and damage symptoms for some important such fruit crops have been detailed
below.
MANGO
Mango hopper : Idioscopus clypealis (Lethiery), I. niveosporus (Lethiery), Amritodus
atkinsoni (Lethiery)
These are the most destructive pests of all the varieties of mango. Injury is caused by
nymphs and adults, when they suck cell-sap from the inflorescence and tender shoots.
Injury to the inflorescence and young shoots is caused by egg-laying and feeding. The
voracious feeding nymphs are particularly harmful. They cause the inflorescence to wither
and turn brown. Even if the flower are fertilized, the subsequent development and fruit setting
may cease. In thick and protected gardens where the atmosphere is humid, a sooty mould
develops on patches of honeydew exuded by the nymphs. As the wind blows, young fruits
and dried inflorescence barkoff at the axil and fall to the ground. The growth of young tree is
much retarded and the older trees do not bear much fruits. Damage to the mango crop is as
high as 60 per cent.
Mango mealybug- Drosicha mangiferae (Green)
Besides mango, it also attacks 62 other plants, including such trees as jack fruit, banyan,
guava, papaya, citrus and jamun.
This pest is active from December to May and spends rest of the year in the egg stage.
Among insect pests of mango, the mealybug occupies an important place. Only the nymphs
are destructive and they suck the plant sap, causing tender shoots and flowers to dry up the
young fruit becomes juiceless and drop off. The pest is responsible for causing considerable
loss to the mango growers and when there is a serious attack the trees retain no fruit at all.
Mango stem borer: Batocera rufomaculata De Geer; B. rubus. Linnaeus.
They have been recorded as serious pests of mango, fig and other trees in north-western
parts of the Indian-subcontinent. Although the borer is not very common, yet whenever it
appears in the main trunk or a branch, it invariably kill the host. Though the external symptoms
of attack are not always visible, the site can be located from the sap or frass that comes out
of the hole. The mango stem borer is also found in newly fallen trees.
Mango stone weevil: Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius)
The export of mango fruits from India to USA has been banned to prevent the entry of this
60
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS OF INSECT-PESTS' DAMAGE IN FRUIT TREES
Bark eating caterpillar
Ber fruit fly
Guava fruit fly
Citrus leaf miner
Mango mealybug
Citrus psylla
Citrus caterpillar
Mango hopper
weevil. The insect attack mango varieties with a relatively soft flesh. However, it is not very
serious in any part of the country. The injury caused by the larvae feeding in pulp sometimes
heals over but a certain number of fruits always get spoiled when the weevil make an exit
through ripe or near ripe mangoes.
Mango bud mite Aceria magniferae Sayed
In India, the mite is serious particularly in Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh.
The bud-mite sucks the sap from inside the buds and causes necrosis of tender tissues.
When the population is high, the entire bud may be killed. This mite infests all varieties of
mango and none has shown resistance to it.
CITRUS
Citrus psylla: Diaphorina citri Kuwayana
It is the most destructive of all the citrus pests. Damage is caused by nymphs and
adults. The pest is active throughout the year but its life-cycle greatly prolonged in the
winter. The most favourable conditions for development are found in the month of March.
Although there is a visible difference in the rise and fall of its population in various
seasons, yet the ill-effects of its damage are so-long lasting that the trees may look sickly
even when the population is not high. Thus, sooty and sickly plants seen in the winter are
victims of insects which caused damage during the previous summer.
Only the nymphs are harmful to the plants. With the help of their sharp piercing mouth
parts, they suck the cell-sap. The vitality of the plants deteriorates and the young leaves
and twigs stop growing further. The leaf-buds, flower buds and leaves may wilt and die,
whatever little fruit is formed in the spring fall off prematurely. Moreover, the nymphs secrete
drops of a sweet thick fluid on which a black fungus develops adversely affecting
photosynthesis. It is also thought that insect produces a toxic substance in the plants as a
result of which the fruits remain undersized and poor in juice and insipid in taste. This insect
is also responsible for spreading the greening virus. If the pest is not checked in time, the
entire orchard may be lost, and after a year or two of continued damage, the plants may be
killed.
Citrus Whitefly: Dialeurodes citri (Ashmead)
Although it is a pest of citrus, the insect prefers to feed on certain deciduous plants
such as persimmon and dharek. Damage is caused by both adults as well as by nymphs.
The pest causes the damage in the nymphal and adult stages. It sucks the cell-sap from
leaves which curl over and fall off. The honey dew excreted by the nymphs is a very good
medium for the growth of a sooty mould, which interferes with photosynthesis. Thus, the
trees infested with this pest deteriorates further. It has been noticed in California that a
heavy infestation of whitefly is apt to be followed by increase in the red scale of citrus,
because the young scales collect under the powdery wax of whitefly for protection against
bright light.
Citrus mealybug, Pseudococcus filamentosus Cockerell
The mealy bugs are known to feed on a number of plants, often not closely related to
citrus. In the gardens, they are seen on Cactus spp., ferns, begonia, gardenia, poineseffia
and other flowers.
61
Damage is caused by both nymphs and females. The insect feed on cell sap and the
plants becomes pale, wilted and the affected parts eventually die. The insect also excrete
honeydew on which a mould grows, which interferes with photosynthesis. Black ants are
attracted to the honeydew and they become a nuisance. In severe cases of infestation, the
citrus flowers do not set fruits.
Citrus caterpillar: Papilio demoleus Linnaeus
It can feed and breed on all varieties of cultivated or wild citrus and various other species
of the family Rutaceae. Only the caterpillars cause damage by eating the leaves. The larva
show preference for young and shiny leaves of citrus. After making a full meal, they remain
motionless while exposed, usually near the mid-rib. Habitually, they feed from the margin
inwards to the midrib. In later stages, they feed even on mature leaves and sometimes the
entire plant may be defoliated.
The pest is particularly devastating in nurseries and its damage to foliage seem to
synchronize with fresh growth of citrus plants in April and August-September. Heavily attacked
plants bear no fruit.
Citrus leaf miner: Phyllocnistic citrella Stainton
Apart from citrus, the insect also feeds on variety of other plants such as pomelo, willow,
annamon and Laranthus spp.
Damage by this mining pest is serious on young leaves. The injured epidermis takes the
shape of twisted silvery galleries. On older leaves, brownish patches are formed which serve
as foci of infection for citrus canker. The attacked leaves remain on the plants for a
considerably long time and the damage gradually spreads to fresh leaves. Heavily attacked
plants can be spotted from a distance and young nurseries are most severely affected; the
young plants of orange and grape fruit may not even survive; the photosynthesis is adversely
affected, vitality is reduced and there is an appreciable reduction in yield.
Fruit sucking moths: Ophiders spp. Cramer
The fruit moths are minor pests of citrus, mango, grapes and apple and are distributed
throughout India. They are reported to be in abundance near the forests or other natural
vegetation. The presence of moths in a locality is observed from the characteristic pin-hole
damage in citrus and other fruits.
Unlike most moths and butterflies, the fruit-piercing moths cause damage in the adult
stage. With the help of its strong piercing mouthparts, moth punctures the fruit for sucking
juice. Bacterial and fungal infections take place at the site of attack with the result that the
brownish mouth of puncture becomes pale and eventually the whole fruit turns yellow. It
drops off the tree and apparently looks like a premature fruit. If the damaged fruit is squeezed,
the juice spurts from the hole. In severe case of infestation, almost all the fruits are lost.
GUAVA
Guava fruit fly: Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel)
Apart from mango, the pest also feeds on guava, peach, apricot, cherry, pear, chiku, ber,
citrus and other plants, totaling more than 250 hosts. This pest is active during summer
months.
Damage is caused by grubs and they feed on fruit pulp, making the fruit unfit for human
consumption. The infested fruits become unmarketable and at times almost all of them
contain maggots.
62
Bark eating caterpillar: Indarbela tetraonis (Moore); Indarbela quadrinotata (Walker)

It also feeds on mango, citrus, jamun, loquat, mulberry, pomegranate, ber, drumstick,
litchi, amla, rose and a number of forest and ornamental trees.
Thick, ribbonlike, silken webs are seen running on the bark of the main stem especially
near the forks. The larvae also makes holes and as many as 16 holes may be seen on a
tree, one caterpillar or pupa occupying each hole. A severe infestation may result in the
death of the attacked stem but not of the main trunk. There may be interference with the
translocation of cell sap and thus arrestation of growth of the tree is noticed with the resultant
reduction in its fruiting capacity.
Guava mealy scale: Chloropulvinaria psidii (Maskell)
Apart from guava, the scale feeds on coffee, tea, citrus, mango, gular, jack fruit, jamun,
litchi, loquat, sapota and many other shrubs and trees.
The scale insects are found in large numbers sticking to leaves on ventral side, tender
twigs and shoots. They suck sap from ventral side of leaves, petioles, tender shoots and
occasionally from fruits. They cause leaf distortion and growth disturbance. The female
feeds voraciously and also exude copious quantity of honeydew. The honeydew excreted by
the scales encourages the development of sooty mould on foliage which interferes with
photosynthetic activity of plants and spoils the market value of fruits. Severe infestation
could kill the branches.
BER
The ber, which is one of the most common fruit trees of Indian sub-continent, is grown
on about 10,000 hectares. It is often called poor mans fruit. In India, as many as 80 insect
species feeding on ber tree have been reported, out of which fruit fly and ber, beetle are
important. The former causes serious damage to fruits and the latter is a foliage feeder and
shows preference for ber trees. Both are basically polyphagous insects and have also been
recorded feeding on a number of fruit trees, but ber seems be the preferred host.
Ber fruitfly Carpomyia vesuviana Costa
This pest is widelydistributed in India, Pakistan and southern Italy. It.is most destructive
to ber fruits of the species Zizyphus mauritiana and Z.jujuba Mill in India and Z. sativa in
Italy. Also, C. vesuviana , Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) and B. correctus have been recorded
as minor pests of ber fruits.
The pest is active during winter and hibernates in the soil from April to August in the
pupal stage. The flies emerge from the pupae during August to mid-November, synchronizing
with the blossoming and fruit setting of the ber.
At the fruit age of one month, the flies make cavities in the skin of fruit and lay one or
two spindle- shaped creamy-white eggs below the skin, leaving behind a resinous material.
There is no further growth of the fruit in the vicinity of this puncture and hence, the fruits
become deformed. The eggs hatch in 2-3 days and the maggots feed on the flesh of the fruit,
making galleries towards the centre. Such fruits invariably rot near the stones and as many
as 18 maggots have been recorded from one attacked fruit. The pest becomes active in the
autumn and builds up population in the winter, reaching a peak in February-March. At that
time all the late-maturing ber fruits are found riddled with maggots. Fleshy varieties of ber
are more seriously damaged than the less fleshy ones. The attacked fruits are rotten near
the stones and emit a strong smell. Late maturing fruits are destroyed almost entirely.
63
Ber Beetles
Adoretus pallens Arrow and A. nitidus Arrow

These two defoliating beetles are widely distributed in northern India and Pakistan. and
are polyphagous but they prefer the ber tree (Zizyphus jujuba) and the grapevine. Only the
adult beetles are destructive and can be recognized from their bright yellow color and
yellowish-brown shiny wings, The beetles are attracted to light and appear in large numbers
late in spring or early summer and again during the monsoon. This pest is active during
summer and passes the winter in larval stage. The adults appear in April-May and lay white,
smooth, elongate eggs singly in the soil near the host plants. The whitish grubs feed on soil
humus, roots of grasses and other vegetable matter found under or near the ber trees. When
full-grown, the grubs measure 15 mm in length and are creamy white. They make an earthen
cell in the autumn and hibernate through the whole of winter. There is only one generation in
a year. Damage is characterized by round holes cut in the leaves by beetles during the
night. The ber trees are sometimes so heavily attacked that the entire foliage may disappear
and such trees do not bear any fruit. The attack starts early in the spring and continues up
to August.
POMEGRANATE
Anar Butterfly, Virachola isocrates (Fabricius)
The caterpillars of the Anar butterfly cause such a heavy damage to the fruits that this
pest alone is responsible for the failure of pomegranate crop in certain areas. This insect is
widely distributed all over India and the adjoining countries. It is a polyphagous pest having
a very wide range of host plants including Aonla, apple, ber. citrus, guava, litchi, loquat,
mulberry, peach, pear, plum, pomegranate, sapota and tamarind. The caterpillars bore inside
the developing fruits and feed on pulp and seeds just below the rind.
The caterpillars damage the fruit by feeding inside and riddling through the ripening
seeds of pomegranate. As many as eight caterpillars may be found in a single fruit. The
infested fruits are also attackd by bacteria and fungi which cause the fruits to rot. The
affected fruits ultimately falloff and give an offensive smell. This pest may cause from 40 to
90 per cent damage to the fruits.
SUGGESTED READING
Atwal, A.S. and Dhaliwal, G.S. 1997. Agricultural Pests of South Asia and their Management.
Kalyani Publishers. pp. 461.
Verma, L. R.; Verma, A. K. Gautam, D. C. (eds.). 2004. Pest Management in Horticultural
Crops . Asiatech Publishers Inc. pp. 376.
Singh, P. and Mann, G. S. 2003. Effect of fruit maturity on the infestation of oriental fruit fly,
Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) in different cultivars of peach, pear and guava. J. Insect
Sci. 16 (1-2) : 52-54.
64
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS AND ASSESSMENT OF

LOSSES DUE TO ARTHROPOD PESTS IN TROPICAL
FRUIT CROPS INCLUDING SOME PLANTATION CROPS
G. M. Patel
Dean, College of Basic Science and Humanities
S. D. Agricultural University, Sardarkrushinagar
India is bestowed upon with such a varied climatic condition that almost all kind of fruits can
be commercially in India for past several years. Area under fruit crops is increasing year after
year but production grown in one or the other part tropical, subtropical and temperate. Over two
dozen fruits are grown of the fruits is still not up to satisfactory level. The horticulturists have
evolved high yielding varieties of fruits and their production technologies but the research on
protection is not sufficient and therefore, till today farmers suffer heavy losses due to insect
pests and diseases. For this purpose, basic knowledge of diagnostic symptoms and assessment
of losses due to arthropod pests of tropical fruits is discussed here.
I.
Mango : Mangifera indica Linnaeus
Over 175 species of insect pests have been reported damaging mango trees(Fletcher,
1917 and Nayar et al., 1976) Important pests of mango are mango hoppers, mango mealy
bugs, mango stem borer, scale insects fruit flies, bark eating caterpillar, gall midges and
termites and mango stone weevil.
1.1 Mango hoppers :
Symptoms of damage : Female inserts eggs in the main vein causing curling up of
such leaves. Both adult as well as nymphs suck cell sap and excrete honey dew which
attract growth of black sooty mould which hampers photosynthesis. Presence of bugs reduce
market price of fruits.
Extent of losses : Rao (1930) estimated 20 to 100 per cent losses due to hopper incidence
in inflorescences, while Chema et al . (1954) and Gangolly et al . (1957) reported it to 25 to 60
per cent.
1.2 Mango mealy bugs : Drosicha mangiferae (Green)
Symptoms of damage : The mealy bug adult as well as nymphs suck cell sap and
excrete honey dew which attract growth of black sooty mould which hampers photosynthesis.
Presence of bugs reduce market price of fruits.
1.3 Mango stem borer : Batocera rufomaculata
Symptoms of damage : Grubs make zig-zag burrows beneath bark and tunnel into the
trunks or main stem, feeding on the internal tissues. When grub reach sapwood, the affected
stem/ branch die and wither. Shedding of leaves, sap and masses of frass exuding from the
bored holes are other symptoms of damage. Eventually the infested branch/ stem die and
dry up.
1.4 Scale insects : Icerya purchasi Maskell
Aspidiotus destructor Signret

Symptoms of damage : The nymphs as well as adult s suck the plant sap causing
substantial quantitative as well as qualitative losses in fruit yield.
65
1.5 Mango fruit fly : Dacus dorsalis (Hendell)

Symptoms of damage : Infests mango (April- July), guava(August-March), loquat, apricot,
plum(April May), peach and fig (June). Maggots feed on the pulp of ripening fruit. Brown
patch appears around oviposition hole. Affected fruits drop prematurely.
1.6 Mango stone weevil : Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius)
Symptoms of damage : The female lays eggs on premature fruits beneath the peel.
The grub on hatching makes its way through the endocarp and enters the seed and feed on
cotyledon. Real damage is done by the weevil while escaping from the stone through the
pulp by soiling it and making it unfit for human consumption.
1.7 Mango shoot borer : Chlumetia transversa Walker
Symptoms of damage : Terminal shoots show tunnel from top to down wards. Stunting
of seedlings with terminal bunchy appearance.
2. Banana : Musa spp.
Simmonds (1966) have published a list of 182 insect pests infesting banana on global
basis, however, only few of them attack this crop in India. The major pests infesting banana
in our country are banana weevil, banana stem borer and flea beetle.
2.1 Banana weevil : Cosmopolitan sordidus (Germar)
Symptoms of damage : Eggs are laid in collar region (above ground) or rhizomes
(underground). Soon after hatching, the grubs bore into the stem of the same stool and feed
within. Pupation is usually in the soil. Adults are sluggish and avoid day light, hiding in leaf
sheaths and rotting pseudo stems where humidity is very low. They feed during night on the
pseudostem and bore in to suckers. The attacked pseudostems get riddled with holes and
the root origins are weakened. Secondly, the tunnels made by these weevils are occupied
by fungi and bacteria which result in rotting of attacked pseudostem. With strong blast of
wind, the plants break down from the point of infestation. If the fruits are formed, very few in
numbers and inferior in quality (Sen and Prasad, 1953).
2.2 Banana stem borer : Odoiporus longicollis (Olivier)
Symptoms of damage : The grubs start feeding on tissues around the air chambers of
leaf sheath and then bore inside the pseudostem. A number of grubs may be found boring a
single plant. The pseudostem thus riddled become weak and start rotting. Ultimately, with
strong blast of wind, the plants break from the point of infestation. The estimated yield loss
due to this pest is between 10 90% depending on the growth stage in which the infestation
occurs and it is the highest in 5 months old crop.
2.3 Flea beetle : Nodostoma subcastatum Jacoby N. viridipennis Motschulsky
Symptoms of damage : Grubs are found underground near the roots, while the beetles
are found feeding on leaves and fruits. The central leaves forming the top whorl are the worst
affected. In case of fruits, the beetles scratch the skin of the newly formed fruits- thus the
fruits are blemished and flavour spoiled, reducing thereby the market value of such fruits.
Roy and Sharma (1952) observed nearly 80 per cent of banana bunches attacked by this
pest during rainy season at Sabour (Bihar).
2.4 Banana aphid : Pentalonia nigronervosa (Coquerel) (Aphididae : Homoptera)
Symptoms of damage : Nymphs and adults suck the sap causing deformation of plants.
The leaves become curled and shriveled and in case of severe infestation young plants are
killed. Feeding also results in honey dew secretion on which the sooty mould grows resulting
in decrease of photosynthetic activity and vigour of the plant. It is a vector of the bunchy top
disease in banana and Katte disease in cardamom.
66
3. Pomegranate : Punica granatum

Pomegranate trees are attacked by about 45 species of insect pests in India. Fruits are
more vulnerable to attack of pests than any other parts of the tree.
3.1 Anar butterfly Deudorix (= Virachola ) isocrates F. ) (Lycaenidae : Lepidoptera)
Nature of damage : The female lays eggs singly on calyx of flowers or small fruits. On
hatching, the caterpillars bore inside the developing fruits and are usually found feeding on
pulp and seeds(arils) just below the rind. As many as eight caterpillars may be found in a
single fruit. Subsequently, the infested fruits are also attacked by bacteria and fungi causing
the fruits to rot. The conspicuous symptoms of damage are offensive smell and excreta of
the caterpillars coming out of entry holes, the excreta are found stuck around the holes.
Sometimes the holes may also be seen plugged with the anal end of a caterpillar. The
affected fruits ultimately fall down and are of no use.
3.2 Fruit borer : Conogethes punctiferalis (Guenee)
Symptoms of damage :
Caterpillar bores into young fruits
Feeds on internal contents (pulp and seeds)
Dry up and fall off in without ripening
3.3 Green Scale, Coccus viridis
Nymphs and adults suck the sap from leaves
Yellowing of leaves.
3.3 Tailed mealy bug : Ferrisa virgata
Symptoms of damage : Premature dropping of fruit.
3.4 Pomegranate aphids : Aphis punicae
Symptoms of damage
Nymphs and adults suck the sap from leaves, shoots and fruits
Yellowing of leaves
Wilting of terminal shoots.
4. Pests of Guava : Psidium guajava Linnaeus
4.1 Guava fruit fly : Bactrocera diversus (Coquillett)
Symptom of damage :
Adults and maggots attack semi ripe fruits
Oviposition punctures on fruits
Maggots destroy and convert pulp into a bad smelling
Discoloured semi liquid mass
4.2 Bark borer, Indarbela tetraonis (Moore)
Symptoms of damage
Young trees may succumb to the attack
Caterpillars bore into the trunk or junction of branches
Caterpillars remain hidden in the tunnel during day time and come out at night, feed
on the bark.
Presence of gallery made out of silk and frass
67
Estimation of losses : Investigations were undertaken from 1999-2003 at Institutes farm

of Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture, Lucknow, India and result indicated that the
incidence of Deudorix isocrates was at its peak on cv. L-49 in the month of August in rainy
crop, while in winter crop it was more during November/December. The incidence ranged
from 3.0 to 38.0 per cent during these periods. Losses in fruit weight were found directly
proportional to the extent of infestation by the borer (Haseeb and Sharma,2007).
4.3 Guava Fruit Borer : Congethes (=Dichocrocis) punctiferalis (Guenee)
Caterpillar bores into young fruits
Feeds on internal contents (pulp and seeds).
Attacked fruits dry up and fall off without ripening.
Tea mosquito bug: Helopeltis antonii Signoret
Nymphs and adults make punctures on petiole, tender shoots and fruits
Brownish black necrotic patches develop on foliage
Elongate streaks and patches develop on shoots
Corky scab formation on fruits
5. Pests of Sapota or Chickoo : Achras sapota Linnaeus
5.1 Chickoo moth : Nephopteryx eugraphella Ragonot
Nature of damage : The caterpillars generally feed on leaves but are often found to
attack buds, flowers and sometimes tender fruits as well. The caterpillars web together a
bunch of leaves and feed within on chlorophyll, leaving behind a fine net work of veins. They
also bore in to flower-buds and tender fruits which wither away and the caterpillar move on to
next bud or fruit.
5.2 Chickoo Bud moth, Anarsia epotias
Bores and web flowers and buds
Shedding of buds and flowers.
Bore holes and excreta seen on attacked flowers.
5.3 Leaf eating caterpillar : Metanastria hyrtaca (Cramer)
Symptoms of damage
Caterpillars feed on leaves
Defoliation
6. Pests of date palm : Phoenix dactylifera Linnaeus
About 13 insect species have been found damaging date palms in India.
6.1 Rhinoceros beetle : Oryctes rhinoceros (Linnaeus )
Symptoms of damage
Central spindle appears cut or toppled
Fully opened fronds showing characteristic diamond shaped cuttings
Holes with chewed fibre sticking out at the base of central spindle.
68
6.2 Red palm weevil : Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier) Identification

Holes on trunk with with brownish ooze
Yellowing of inner leaves
Gradual wilting of central shoot in the crown
6.3 Bark weevil : Dicalandra stigmaticolis
Symptoms of Damage :
Reddening of petioles and trunks especially around wounds.
Trees with stem bleeding disease.
6.4 Black headed caterpillar : Opisina arenosella (Meyrick)
Symptoms of Damage :
Dried up patches on leaflets of the lower leaves
Galleries of silk and frass on underside of leaflets.
6.5 Scale insect : Aspidiotus destructor
Yellowing of leaves in patches, later coalescing together
6.6 Mealy bug : Pseudococcus longispinus
Central leaves stunted, deformed and suppressed
Shedding of buttons
6.7 Coconut Eriophyid mite : Aceria guerreronis
Triangular pale or yellow patches close to perianth
Necrotic tissues
Brown colour patches, longitudinal fissures and splits on the husk
Oozing of the gummy exudation from the affected surface
Reduced size and copra content
Malformed nuts with cracks and hardened husk.
7. Custard apple : Annona squamosa Linnaeus
7.1 Fruit borer : Heterographis bengalella (Ragonot)
Symptom of damage :
Caterpillar bore into the fruits and make tunnel inside
Feed on the internal content of the fruits
Affected fruits fall to ground
7.2 Fruit fly : Bactrocera zonata
Symptom of damage :
Maggot bore into the semi ripened fruits
Feed on the inside fruits
Affected fruits shriveled, malformed, rot and fall off
69
7.3 Tailed mealy bug : Ferrisa virgata (Cockerell)

Adults and crawlers setting on leaves, young shoots and fruit (between segments)
Yellowing of leaves
Reduction of fruit size and do not fetch premium price in the market.
8. Pests of Citrus
8.1 Citrus caterpillar/Lemon butterfly : Papilio demoleus Linnaeus
Symptoms of damage : Under favourable conditions, this can be serious insect under
nursery conditions and in young orchards. Larvae appear like bird dropping in early instars.
Full-grown larva turns green. Leaves are eaten from the edges to the midrib. In case of
severe attack, only midribs are left behind. Complete defoliation may occur resulting in
stunted growth of the plant. Caterpillar, when feels threatened or frightened, produces a jet
of fluid having strong odour from a fleshy organ (shaped like a snake tongue) behind the
head known as osmeterium. This is a natural defense mechanism in this insect Peak activity
period: April-May and August-October
8.2 Citrus leaf miner : Phyllocnistis citrella
Symptoms of damage : This is the most harmful insect of citrus nursery. Its infestation
coincides with the flush periods. Larvae feed in epidermis of leaves making serpentine silvery
mines usually on the ventral side. When the infestation is severe, mines also appears on
dorsal side of the leaves. The serpentine mines appear silver coloured because air is
entrapped in these mines. Tiny pupae can be seen in the damaged leaf in the mines. Such
leaves are folded from the edge due to spinning of cocoons by the larvae. Leaves get distorted,
crumpled and curled from margins towards inner side. Ultimately, the damaged leaves dry
up and fall down Mines appear on tender twigs also. Severe defoliation may occur, which
results in reduced growth of nursery plants. The leaves folded due to damage by leaf miner
serves as shelter site for mealy bugs, grey weevil, citrus psylla and spiders. This insect
enhances citrus canker disease.
Peak activity period : Last week of April to mid June and last week of July to mid October.
8.3 Citrus white and Black fly : Aleurocanthus woglumi(Ashby)
Dialeurodes citri (Ashmead)
Symptoms of damage : Both nymphs and adults suck plant sap and reduce the vigour
of the plant. Severely infested foliage turns pale green to brown. Foliage may also become
curled and ultimately shed. Infested tree gives blackish appearance due to sooty mould
growing on honeydew. Few flowers are produced on such trees and fruits developing from
such flowers have insipid taste. White and black pupae of whitefly and blackfly, respectively
can be seen on the underside of the leaves .
Peak activity period : April-May and September-October
8.4 Citrus Fruit Sucking moth : Eudocima fullonia (Clerck)
Eudocima materna (Linnaeus)
Damage symptoms : The caterpillars are leaf defoliators and generally found on wild
creepers of menispermaceae and anacardiaceae families apart from some economic crops
like castor, ber, pomegranate etc.
Adult moth sucks the juice of ripening fruits after dusk (sun set) during the rainy season.
The moths have a strong proboscis with sharp spines with which they pierce the ripening
fruits. A circular pinhole like spot appears at the feeding site. Later on, the area around the
70
damaged portion turns yellowish-brown. On squeezing such fruits, a jet of fermented juice
comes out. The punctured fruits are easily infected with bacteria and fungi. As a result, the
fruit rot and falls prematurely. E
Estimated losses : 3 to 5 per cent fruits are damaged by moths every year.
Peak activity period : July to October (mainly in the sub-montaneous zone of Punjab,
particularly in the Kandi belt of District Hoshiarpur and Pathankot area of District Gurdaspur
near the forest areas).
8.5 Citrus psylla : Diaphorina citri Kuwayama
Damage symptoms : Both the nymphs and adults suck plant sap. Nymphal stage causes
more damage than the adult stage. Heavy de-blossoming may occur. Leaves show chlorotic
symptoms. Size of the leaves gets reduced and leaves become distorted and curled. The
infested twigs die-off from tip backward, probably due to toxin released by psylla during
feeding. This insect excretes honeydew, which is covered with a waxy secretion of circumanal
glands. In case of severe damage, waxy material falls under tree on ground giving the ground
a whitish look. Unlike secretions by aphids and scale insects that results into growth of
sooty mould, honeydew excreted by psylla does not results in deposition of sooty mould on
leaves. Ants can be seen commonly moving at the site of infestation. It is a vector of
greening disease (caused by a bacterium) and one of the major factors for citrus decline.
9. Pests of Coffee ( Coffea arabica)
9.1 Coffee white borer, Xylotrechus quadripes Ch. (Cerambycidae: Coleoptera)
Nature of damage : The grubs burrow into the stem for 8 - 9 months and cause wilting
of branches and occasionally death of bushes. It is a serious pest of Arabica coffee. Infested
plants show external ridges around the stem. Affected plants also show yellowing and willing
of leaves.
9.2 Coffee Berry Borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) (Scolytidae: Coleoptera)
Nature of damage : Pin holes at the tip of berries. In severe cases of infestation two or
more holes may be seen. Infested berries may fall due to injury or secondary infection.
Severe infestation may result in heavy crop loss up to 40 - 80%.
SUGGESTED READING
Chema G. S., S. S. Bhat and K. C. Naik. 1954. Commercial Fruits of India , 422 pp.
Macmillan & Co. Ltd. , Calcutta.Fletcher, Bainbrigge T.1917. Fruit trees. Rept. Proc. 2nd
Ent. Mtg. Pusa (Bihar), February 1917 : 209-257, Calcutta.
Gangolly, S. R., Ranjit Singh, S. L. Katyal and Daljit Singh. 1957. The Mango , 530 pp.
Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.
Nayar, K. K., T. N. Ananthakrishanan and B. V. David. 1976. General and Applied Entomology.,
589 pp. Tata Mac Graw- Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., New Delhi.
Rao, Y. Ramchandran.1930. The mango hopper problem in South India. Agric J. India .,
25 (1) : 17-25, Pusa (Bihar).
Roy, R. S. and Chandeshwar Sharma. 1952. Diseases and pests of bananas and their control.
Indian J. Hort. 9 (4) : 39-52,New Delhi.
Sen, A. C. and D. Prasad. 1953. Pests of Banana in Bihar. Indian J. Ent ., 15 (3) : 240-256.
71
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS AND LOSS ASSESSMENT

DUE TO INSECT-PESTS IN COTTON
K. K . Dahiya
Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding,
CCS, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 004
Cotton is the most important commercial crop of our country contributing upto 75% of
total raw material needs of textile industry and provides employment to about 60 million
people. Cotton is attacked by several insect pests reducing the crop yield to a greater
extent. The insect pests that attack cotton crop may be classified into sap sucking insects
or chewing insects.
SUCKING INSECT-PESTS :
Sucking pests of cotton can infest a crop from the time of seedling emergence. They are
able to reduce the yields of cotton as pests in their own right - but usually only if their
population densities are enhanced by the misuse of insecticides. Sucking pests are often
induced pests. Farmers are known to react to their presence and apply an insecticide in an
attempt to kill them, irrespective of whether they have any potential to reduce yields. This
brings forward the first insecticide application of the season and reduces the number of
natural control agents in the fields that would or could have eaten or parasitised the bollworm
eggs and larvae that arrive later in the season. This earlier-than-necessary insecticide
application is the first step in the seasonal pesticide treadmill that results in the build up of
insecticide resistance within and between crop cycles. Aphid, leafhopper and whitefly in
particular are seen as predator fodder and as such have an important role to play as
attractants to the ladybirds.
Leafhopper : Amrasca biguttlla biguttlla : Leafhopper is a polyphagous insect pest.
Both nymphs and adults cause damage by sucking the cell sap. The attacked leaves turn
pale and than rusted red and leaves may turn to cup shape (down side) and dry up. In case
of severe attack, plant vitality is affected and cotton bolls may also drop off. The population
is considered to be serious if 2 or more than 2 nymphs per leaf are observed or if 20 percent
of the leaves start showing the yellowing symptoms from the edge of the leaves.
Cotton Whitefly, Bemisia tabaci : Cotton whitefly is a polyphagous insect pest with
wide host range. Damage is done by sucking the cell sap from the leaves resulting the loss
of vitality of the plant. Normal photosynthesis is affected due to growth of sooty mould on
honeydew deposited on dorsal surface of the leaves; consequently the growth of the plant
and yield is affected. Cotton white fly also transmit the cotton leaf curl virus and the veins of
diseased leaves got thickened and later on leaves becomes cup shaped (up side) and another
leaf is emerged from the leaf.
Thrips, Thrips tabaci : Nymphs and adults are the damaging stage. Nymphs do maximum
damage by rasping and sucking the sap from the veins of the leaves which ultimate dry up
Dry weather favuors the multiplication of thrips.
Mealybug : The insect feeds on sap of the plant preferably on the central twig and than
on other plant part and releases toxic substances causing injury, curling and drying of the
72
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS OF INSECT-PESTS' DAMAGE IN COTTON
Leafhopper
Red cotton bug
Spodoptera litura
Helicoverpa armigera
Mealybug
Pink bollworm
Earias spp.
Cotton leaf roller
Dusky cotton bug
Thrips
Whitefly
Termite
Blister beetle
leaves. It also secrets copious quantity of honeydew on to the plant that in turn attracts ants
and sooty mould.Plant may show on or more of the following symptoms like crinkled/twisted
leaves and shoots, bunched or unopened leaves, distorted or bushy shoots, white fluffy
mass on buds and stem, presence of honey dew, black sooty mould, unopened flowers
which often shrivel and dieand small deformed bolls etc.
Dusky Cotton Bug, Oxycarenus laetus Damage is done by sucking the cell sap from
immature seeds thus the seeds may not ripe, loose color and remain light in weight. Adults
get crushed at the time of ginning in cotton thus stain the lint and lower its market value.
Red Cotton Bug Dysdercus koenigii : Damage by the pest is done by sucking the cell
sap from leaves and green bolls of cotton. The lint from the affected bolls is of poor quality.
Seeds produced from the affected bolls may have poor germination and less oil. Bugs stain
the lint with excreta or body fluid as they are crushed in the ginning factories Due to the
attack of the pest, bacterial growth also takes place.
Aphid, Aphis gossypii is a polyphagous pest. Nymphs and adults of aphid cause damage
by sucking the cell sap from twigs and leaves. Aphids also secrete the honeydew, which
covers the dorsal surface of the leaves and on the leaves. Due to development of sooty
mould leaves are covered with black coating and ultimately photosynthetic activity is
hampered. Lint quality is also affected due to deposition of sooty mould on open bolls.
BOLLWORM COMPLEX :
The term bollworm is not particularly useful. Whilst it clumps together a group of insects
that are members of the order Lepidoptera, that is really where the similarity becomes thin
- except, of course, that the caterpillars - the worms - do bore into the bolls of cotton plants.
But they also strip the leaves, destroy buds and bore into the stems. Perhaps we should
call them cotton caterpillars.
Most species of bollworm (other than Helicoverpa) have spread all round the world. This
is because they are carried with the product they infest, both in the lint and the seed - and
by the accidents that confound the most stringent of quarantine procedures. The implication
is that even if a given species is not present now it could be one day.
Pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) : The larvae do the damage. Initial
instars are white bearing pinkish ting, which subsequently change in pink color. Larvae are
found inside flower buds and the bolls of cotton The pest remains active in cotton ecosystem during July to October-November and passes the winter season hibernating in the
cotton seeds If five percent damaged fruiting bodies are found effected the pest is considered
in serious proportions. Larval stage damages the buds, flower and bolls. Soon after emergence,
the larvae enter the flower buds, flowers and the bolls. Entry hole is closed down and larvae
continue its feeding in side the bolls. The attacked bolls fall off prematurely and the others,
which remain on plant, dont contain good quality lint and the last of the season due to its
damage double seeds are formed.
Spotted bollworm (Earias vittella Fab. & Earias insulana Boisd) : The pest remains
active throughout the year on one or the other host. But in cotton ecosystem, damage is
done during August to October Pest is considered to be serious if the population during
vegetative stage damage one percent shoots. During reproductive stage if 5 percent fruiting
73
bodies are damaged, the pest has reached to economic threshold. In the vegetative stage
larval bore into the growing shoots and the affected shoots droop down. Later on, during the
reproductive stage, larvae borer in to the flower buds, flowers and green bolls consequently
shedding of the fruiting bodies takes place. The attacked bolls are tunneled and blocked
with excreta. The infested bolls open prematurely and the lint is spoiled resulting in lower
market value
American bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera Hubner) : It is a highly polyphagous insect
pest. Helicoverpas range extends over four continents, it is polyphagous, consuming cotton,
tomatoes and other vegetables, coarse grains (maize, sorghum and pearl millet), all grain
legumes, and other crops.The crops it attacks are essential for food security or of high
commercial value, and the larvae feed on and spoil or destroy the ripening fruit and seed
pods of the crops it attacks, which are often the plant parts that farmers want to harvest.
The newly hatched larva initiates feeding on the buds, squares, flowers and bolls of the
cotton crop. The larvae make a circular hole on the fruiting bodies and as the larvae grow up
half of the larval body remain outside and release the facial material outside. Fully damaged
fruiting body shed down. Fully ripen bolls are not damaged by the American bollworm. During
early season the larvae may also be noticed feeding on the succulent leaves.
SUGGESTED READING
Dhawan, A.K., 2000 Cotton pest scenario in India : current status of insecticides and future
perspectives. Agrolook 1 (1) : 9-26.
Gupta, G. P. 1999. Use of safer chemicals in cotton IPM system a review. J. Cotton Res.
Dev. 13 (1) : 56-62.
Hargreaves, H. 1984. List of Recorded Cotton Insects of World . Commonwealth Institute of
Entomology. London, pp. 50.
74

LOSSES DUE TO INSECT-PESTS IN PADDY
Lakhi Ram
CCS Haryana Agricultural university, Hisar-125 004
There are more than 100 insect species recorded as feeding on rice plant. About 20 of
them reached the status of pests causing economic losses under farmers situation. Among
them stem borer, planthopper, leafhopper, leaf folder, gall midge, rice hispa, gundi bug, case
worm & armyworms are the most important. Different stages of insects injure rice plants.
Injury from feeding leads to damage symptoms on plant parts. The correct and rapid diagnosis
is of greatest importance as required by the farmers, agricultural planning staff, insurance
personnels, valuers of yield and yield losses.
2. Diagnostic Symptoms
Field diagnosis of injury caused by all insects, ( except planthoppers, grain bugs ) can
clearly be recognized by above ground symptoms at different stages of crop growth. These
symptoms are described here in brief.
2.1 Stem borer ( Scirpophaga incertulas Walker)
The stem borer attacks throughout the growth period. In the vegetative stage, the larva
bores into and feeds inside the stem, and as a result the central leaf whorl does not unfold,
turns brownish and dries out resulting in the formation of dead hearts. In the reproductive
stage, the damage results in the formation of whitish, chaffy and erect panicles known as
white ears.
2.2 Brown planthopper ( Nilaparvata lugens Stal.)
Both adults and nymphs suck the sap from the base of the stem, resulting in yellowing
and drying of the plants. At early stages of attack, round, yellowish patches appear which
soon turn brownish due to drying up of the plants. The patches of infestation spreads in
concentric circles within the field and in severe cases the affected field gives a burnt
appearance known as hopper burn.
2.3 Whitebacked planthopper ( Sogatella furcifera (Horvath )
Both nymphs and adults suck the plant sap from phloem and causes drying up of plants.
Unlike brown plant planthopper (BPH), it does not cause sudden and severe hopper burn.
2.4 Leaf folder ( Cnaphalocrocis medinalis Guenee )
The larva folds the leaves with the help of silken threads secreted from salivary glands,
remains inside and feed on the chlorophyll content of the leaves, leaving only the lower
epidermis which make the leaves white and papery. Gradually, the leaves dry up and turn
brown. Under heavy infestation, the field presents a scorched appearance.
2.5 Gall midge ( Orseolia oryzae Wood Mason )
The maggot enters the young rice plant and starts feeding on growing portion. As a
result, the meristematic tissues grow and turn into a pale green tubular structure called
Silver Shoot. The damaged tiller does not bear panicle and the crop under severe infestation
is stunted.
75
2.6 Rice hispa ( Dicladispa armigera Oliver )

Earlier considered to be a sporadic and minor pest has attained the status of a regular
and major pest in north-eastern, eastern and central region of India. Both adults and grubs
damage the crop. The adult scrap the chlorophyll content both on the upper and lower side
of leaves. The grubs mine in between two epidermal layers and feed on the chlorophyll
content. In severe infestations, the crop gets dried with whitish appearance without any
green color.
2.7 Green leafhopper (Nephotettix virescens Dist.)
The leafhoppers feed on the leaf and suck the sap from phloem as well as xylem. But
they dont cause hopper burn. The damage to the rice plant by this kind of injury is of less
importance as plant does not loose much of its vigor.
2.8 Rice earhead /Gundhi bug ( Leptocorisa acuta Thunb. )
The nymphs and adults feed on developing/partial milky grains causing brown spots,
partially filled and chaffy grains. The nymphs as well as adults emit a characteristic effective
odour in infested fields, which can be very easily recognized as a signal of presence of gudhi
bug in rice fields.
2.9 Swarming caterpillar ( Spodoptera spp.)
This is an occasional pest but can cause serious damage in the dry season. When high
population occurs, the army of swarming caterpillar march in the field and feed on leaves by
cutting of leaf tips, leaf margins, leaves and plant at the base.
2.10
Rice case worm ( Nymphula depunctalis Guenee)
It is commonly found in low lands with poor drainage and flooded field. The attack is
usually patchy and not continuous. The larva cuts the leaves into small bits and makes
them into cases of approximately its own body size. The larva remains inside the case and
feeds on leaves by scraping the chlorophyll content. As a result, the plant growth and vigor
are seriously affected. If the leaves are distrubed the cases along with larva fall on water
surface.
3. ASSESSMENT OF LOSSES
3.1 Estimates of insect- caused yield losses
Several studies have reported rice yield losses due to insects in Asia. Cramer (1967)
reported that yield lost to all insects in tropical rice was 34%. Pathak and Dhaliwal (1981)
reported 35-44% and several other studies report losses of similar magnitude.
Table 1 shows the estimates of losses in recent period as compiled in country studies.
Although different methods were used to derive the estimates, with one exception of Indonesia
the losses are of similar magnitude. Stem borer damage reported in all location range from
1 to 110 kg/ha across study location. Rice leaf folder losses ranged from 9 to 44 kg/ ha in
six of seven locations. Brown planthopper losses were also reported in six of seven locations
with damage ranging from 7 to 34 kg/ha.
76
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS OF INSECT-PESTS' DAMAGE IN PADDY
Brown planthopper
Rice leaf folder
Rice gundhi bug
Rice stem borer
Table 1. Estimated average rice production losses (kg/ha) caused by main insects
Region
SB
RLF
BPH
GLH
Earhead bug
GM
RH
East India
35
15
NA
West Bengal
Southern India
Bangladesh
Indonesia
Thailand
Nepal
15
25
NA
NA
NA
32
44
23
19
35
25
NA
38
11
NA
NA
40
NA
41
346
NA
25
NA
28
NA
NA
21
12
NA
NA
NA
110
42
34
41
20
NA
89
Source : Ramasamy and Jatileksono, 1996
SUGGESTED READING
Bautista, R.C. , Heinrichs, E.A, Rejesus, RS. 1984. Economic injury levels for the rice leaf
folder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Insect infestation and artificial
leaf removal. Environ. Entomol. 13 : 439-443.
Cramer, H.H. 1967. Plant Protection and World Crop Production . Pflanzenschutz Nachrichren
Bayer 20.
Heinrichs, E.A.,Viajante, V.D. 1987. Yield loss in rice caused by the caseworm Nymphula
depunctalis Guenee (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J Plant Prot.Tropics 4 : 15-26.
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) 1990. Crop Loss Assessment in Rice . IRRI, Los
Banos, Philippines.
Litsinger, J.A. 1991. Crop Loss Assessment in Rice . In : E.A.Heinrichs and T.A. Miller
(eds.). Rice Insects : Management Strategies. Springer, New York, PP.1-65.
Ramasamy, C. and Jatileksono, T. 1996. Intercountry comparision of insects and disease
losses . In : Evenson, R.E., Herdt, R.W and Hossain, M. (eds.) . Rice Research in Asia
- Progress and Priorities .CAB International and IRRI, pp. 305-316.
Rama Parsad, A.S., Krishanaih, N.V. and Pasalu, I.C. 2004. Estimation of yield loss due to
measure insect pest interaction in rice. Indian J. Pl. Prot. 32 (2) : 26-28.
Singh, J. and Dhaliwal, G.S. 1994. Insect pest management in rice : A perspective, In :
Dhaliwal, G.S. and Arora, R. (eds.). Trends in Agricultural Insects Pest Management,
Commonwealth Publishers, New Delhi, India. pp. 56-112.
Suenaga, H. and Nomura, K. 1970. Host : Oryza Sativa (rice), Organisms : Nilaparvata
lugens ( brown planthopper). In : L.Chiarappa (ed.). Crop Loss Assessment Method.
FAO Manual on Evaluation and Prevention of Losses by Pest, Diseases and Weeds .
1971. FAO and Commonwealth Agric. Bur.
77

DUE TO INSECT-PESTS IN PULSES
Roshan Lal
India is a major pulse growing country in the world, sharing 35-36 per cent area and 2728 per cent of production of these crops. It is producing 12-14 million tones of pulses from
22-24 million ha of land. The commonly grown pulse crops in India are chickpea (Cicer
arietinum), pigeonpea ( Cajanus cajan ), mungbean ( Vigna radiata ), urdbean (Vigna mungo ),
horsegram (Macrotyloma biflorus), mothbean ( Vigna aconitifolia), lathyrus (Lathyrus sativus ),
lentil ( Lens culinaris ), cowpea ( Vigna unguiculata), drybean ( Phaseolus vulgaris) and peas
( Pisum sativum ). A few minor pulses such as ricebean (Vigna umbellota ) and fababean
(Vicia faba ) are grown in specific areas only. Pulses are rich sources of protein to vegetarians
and have an inherent capacity to fix large amounts of atmospheric nitrogen in symbiotic
association with Rhizobium.Cultivation of chickpea and pigeonpea in India takes place under
diverse agroecological nitches such as rainfed/ irrigated, mixed/ monocrop, early/late maturity
group, low /high input conditions, traditional/progressive farming etc., posing a highly variable
spectrum of pest problems. The insect pest spectra that infest these pulse crope include
more than 50 species on chickpea and 300 species on pigeonpea.
Chickpea
Several insect pests have been noticed to attack the chickpea crop at different crop
growth stages but gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera is the single most important pest of
legumes, cotton, cereals, vegetables and fruit crops in Asia, Africa, Australia and the
Mediterranean Europe. Other insect pests which cause losses to the chickpea crop are
termites, Odontotermes obesus (Rambur) and Microtermes Obesi Holm, cutworms, Agrotis
ypsilon (Huf.) and A. flammatra Schiffer-Mueller, semilooper, Autographa nigrisigna (Wlk.),
bean aphid, Aphis craccivora Koch and tobacco caterpillar, Spodoptera exigua.
The insect pests that occur at vegetative and-flowering stages of chickpea and pigeonpea
do not usually cause economic loss. But the infestation that occurs at reproductive stage,
mainly on pods and seeds can significantly reduce the crop yields as there is not much time
left for plant to compensate. The pod borer complex of chickpea and pigeonpea varies
according to the crop maturity and agro-ecological nitches.
Pigeonpea : The insect-pests infesting pigeonpea pods and seeds are lepidopterans,
dipteran, coleopterans and hymenopterans. In addition to pod borers, hemipteran bugs
(Clavigralla spp.) also sometime cause considerable economic losses to pigeonpea.
Among the pod infesting insect pest s of pigeonpea (Table 1), the gram pod
borer,Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) and the podfly, Melanagromyza obtusa Malloch are of
major importance on medium and late maturing pigeonpea whereas the gram pod borer, H.
armigera, the spotted caterpillar, Maruca testullis, the leaf tier, Eucosoma (Cydia) critica
and the pod fly, M . obtusa are major insect species of early maturing pigeonpea.
Amongst medium and late pigeonpea gram pod borer is a predominant borer of south India
and podfly a major borer species of central and north India. Also, the podfly, M. obtusa is
comparatively more damaging on late maturing varieties than on early maturing varieties. The pod
weevil, Apion clavipes is important in north eastern coastal regions of India, including Bihar.
78
Table 1.
Pod Borer Complex infesting pigeonpea
Group
Common name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
Lepidoptera
Gram Pod borer
Major
All States
Major
Central & North India
Spotted Pod borer
Maruca testulatis G.
Plume Moth
Exelastis atomosa W.
Minor
All States
Blue
Lampides boeticus L.
Minor
do
Butter Fly
Catochrysops strabo F.
Minor
do
Pod borer
Etiella zinckenella T.
Major
do
Diptera
Pod borer
Melanagromyza obtusa
Major
Colepotera
Bruchid borer
Callosobruchus maculatus F. Major
All States
C. analis F.
Minor
do
C. chinensis L.
Major
do
Apion clavipes G.
Major
Pod weevil
Hymenoptera
Pod wasp
Tanaostigmodes cajaninae L. Major
Hemiptera
Pod bug
Clavigralla gibbosa S,
Major
do
Pod bug
Riptortus spp.
Major
do
Green bug
Nezara viridula
Major
do
All States
CROP LOSS ASSESSMENT

Chickpea
The loss in yield caused by H. armigera has been reported to be 40% to 100% in Madhya
Pradesh and 30-50% in Punjab. Large scale extensive field surveys conducted by IIPR
entomologists during 1979-81in 38 districts of Uttar Pradesh showed mean pod damage due
to H. armigera from 3.1 to 32.9 per cent, with an overall mean of 14.6%pod damage for the
whole state (Lal et al. 1985). Similar extensive field surveys conducted by ICRISAT in different
states of India during 1977-82 revealed mean pod damage of 2.4-15.1 per cent, with a national
mean of 7.8% (Reed et al., 1987).
Pigeonpea
ICRISAT total mean pod damage due to borer complex from 35.8 to 49.0 per cent. They
also observed that H. armigera was relatively more severe (29.7% pod damage) in north
west zone where early maturing pigeonpea varieties are grown. In north India, the
Melanagromyza obtusa appeared to be the dominant pest on late varieties (20.8% pod
damage). Where as, in central India, the lepidopteran borers (mainly, H. armigera) and the
pod fly, M. obtusa, both were serious and caused 46.6% pod damage. However, H. armigera
was key pest and caused 36.4% pod damage (Lateef and Reed 1981 and Sachan 1990).
Similar surveys were conducted by IIPR entomologists in Uttar Pradesh during 1978-84
and recorded 24.6 to 48.6 per cent grain damage in the state due to pod borer complex, with
a mean of 35 per cent grain damage (Table 2). In Uttar Pradesh, the podfly, M. obtusa was
the key pest on late maturing varieties which occupy 90 per cent of the pigeonpea area and
caused maximum loss (24.6% grain damage) to the crop (Sachan 1990 and Lal et al. 1992).
79
Tabel 2.
Grain damage caused by lepidopteran borers and pod fly in determinate

and indeterminate late maturing pigeonpea cultivars at the Indian Institute
of Pulses Research farm at Kanpur India 1980-83.
Plant type
Cultivar
% grain damaged
1980-81
1981-82
Pod fly
Lep. borer
Pod fly
1982-83
Lep. borer Pod fly Lep. borer
Determinate
Allahabad local
26.3
8.2
27.8
10.2
27.5
14.1
Indeterminate
Kanpur
39.8
3.3
38.3
5.2
36.9
9.6
BLACK GRAM, VIGNA MUNGO (L.) HEPPER

Over 64 species of insect pests have been found associated with the crops of Vigna
group (Lal, 1985). Of these, Caliothrips indicus, Megalurothrips dista/is (Karny); leaf hopper,
Empoasca kerri Pruthi; whitefly, Bemisia tabaci Gennadius; hairy cater pillars, S. obliqua
(Wlk.) and A. moorei Butl.; galerucid beetle, Madurasia obscurella, tobacco caterpillar,
Spodoptera litura F.; pod borers, L. boeticus L., H. armigera Hubner, M testulalis Geyer and
Grapholita critica Meyr are the common pests. Late sowing and dry spell experienced an
outbreak of Maruca testulalis which resulted in almost 100% loss of flower buds and pods in
Karnataka (Giraddi et al., 2000).
Yellow Mosaic Virus
The accurrence of yellaw masaic virus (YMV) is one of the most severe biotic stresses
in many kharif pulse crops. The viral disease is transmitted by the whitefly, B. tabaci, and
the yield of the plants is affected drastically.
MUNGBEAN, VIGNA RADIATA (L.) WILCZEK
On mungbean, at one week intervals from one week after germination until harvest, some
31 species of insect pests were recorded, 20 of which were the regular visitors and 11 were
the sporadic ones. The crops were mainly infested by B. tabaci, E. kerri, A. craccivora, 0.
phaseoli, N. viridula and Phytomyza horticola. Out of these B. tabaci was the most important
(Dar et al., 2002).
Larvae of Rivellia sp. were found infesting the nodules of mungbean, urdbean, cowpea,
red gram and groundnut. Upto 98 per cent nodule damage occurred on crops sown in kharif
season in Karnataka. The platysomid completely emptied the nodules and plant growth was
adversely effected. Damaged nodules showed a single characteristic minute entry and exit
hole. Infested nodules were shriveled and discoloured. Root and shoot length, total dry
matter, nodule dry weight and grain yield were reduced. Ostrinia furnacalis (Guenee) to
mungbean, V. radiata (L.) Wilzeck, most of the larval feeding is confined inside stems, but
some larvae are also found in the roots and pods. The higher the diameter and longer the
internodes, the greater was the damage.
Lentil : Lentil is an important pulse crop grown in Asia (India, Jordan, Lebanon and
Turkey). Among the biotic constraints, insect pests play a major role. About 36 insect pests
have been reported to infest lentil under field and storage conditions, of which 21 have been
reported from India. The insect-pests feeding on lentil under field conditions include aphids,
bud weevils, cutworms, leaf weevils, lygus bugs, pod borers, stink bugs and thrips.
Diagnostic symptoms
Gram pod borer : The freshly emerged larvae of Helicoverpa armigera initially feed on
the tender leaves by nibbling on chickpea, pigeonpea and few other legumes, causing
80
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS OF INSECT-PESTS' DAMAGE IN PULSES
Blue butterfly
Pod borer in chickpea
Clavigralla gibbosa
on pigeonpea
Cutworm
extensive damage. Damage in cotton and pigeonpea is mostly to flowers and flower buds
and later on shifted to bolls and pods of the crop. Young chickpea seedlings may be destroyed
completely, particularly under tropical conditions in Southern India. At pod stage, the larvae
make hole into the pod and feed inside the pod. Normally the larvae are seen feeding in pod
on developing seeds by intruding anterior half inside the pod and rest posterior hanging
outside.
Thrips : Several species of thrips viz., Caliothrips indicus, Megalurothrips distalis, Thrips
augusticeps, Thrips tabaci damage grain legumes including mungbean, urd bean and lentil.
Most of the thrips prefer flowers but in the absence of flowers, they also feed on foliage.
When the population of thrips are high, the growing points of the plants may blacken and
wither. Feeding by thrips on young leaves results in silvery streaks on the opened leaves
and distortion or curling of leaves. When infestation is severe, the leaf area is reduced,
which indirectly affects photosynthesis and grain yield.
Spodoptera exigua : It is a serious pest of beet, broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, celery,

chickpea and corn etc. The young larvae initially feed gregariously on chickpea foliage. As
the larvae mature, they become solitary and continue to eat, producing large, irregular holes
in the foliage. But it has not been reported as a serious pest on pods.
Black aphid : Both nymphs and adults suck the plant sap from the tender leaves,
stems and pods and colonize mostly on the young leaves and growing points which become
deformed. Yield can be drastically reduced and if infestation are early and severe, plants
can be killed. Infestation during the bloom and early pod stages reduce yield and crop
quality by removing plant sap, impairing pod appearance and reducing seed fill and by the
presence of aphid honey dew upon which sooty mold grows.
Black cutworm : The black cutworm feeds on chickpea, lentil, pea, potato and other
crops in northern India. The larvae feed on leaves, stems and roots of many field crops upto
10 per cent plant damage has been recorded at 40 days after crop emergence in chickpea.
The larvae come out of their hiding places at night and damage the plants only under the
cover of deepness. Generally, this pest attacks the chickpea crop in two stages of its growth.
In the seedling stage, the stem is generally cut at an average height of 5 cm from the soil
surface. They consume only a little of the stem and then nibble and move to attack others.
During later stage of growth, the shoots are damaged by cutting them at an average height
of 24 cm from the soil surface where the stem is soft.
Bruchids : Members of the family bruchidae have been reported to destroy the seeds of
leguminous plants. Female of Callosobruchus maculates and C. chinensis lay eggs, which
are visible to the naked eye on the seeds. Bruchids tend to lay eggs singly on a given host,
but if all the seeds are occupied, the female starts laying eggs on already egg-laden seeds.
The neonate larva bores into the seed beneath the oviposition site and completes its
development within single seed. Damaged seeds are riddled with adult emergence holes
and become unfit for human or animal consumption.
Green stink bug : The green stink bug feeds on many weeds and several important
agricultural crops including barley, lentil, pigeonpea, cowpea, fababean, mungbean, tomato
and wheat etc. The nymphs and adults of Nezara viridula suck the sap from leaves, stems
and pods, resulting in malformation or drying up of the pods. In lentil, they suck sap from
shoots and pods. The bugs cause varying degrees of damage from the seedling stage, when
the young growing tips of plants dry up, until crop harvest. They are especially damaging
during the reproductive phase, when they feed on the pods.
81
Leaf weevil : Both adults and larvae of Sitona crinitus damage the lentil crop, but the
larvae are more damaging. The adult weevils feed on foliage making semicircular notches in
the leaf edges early in the season. The adult feeding normally does not affect yields unless
population are very high. Usually plants can quickly compensate for foliar damage. The
larvae are serious pest on nitrogen fixing nodules of lentil.
Leafminers : In addition to chickpea, Liriomyza cicerina has been reported to feed on
Alliums spp., beet, Brassica spp., capsicum, faba bean, groundnut, lentil, pea and several
other crops. Chromatamyia horticola is a polyphagous pest and feed on alfalfa, chickpea,
faba bean, field pea and mung bean etc. L. cicerina females puncture the upper surface of
chickpea leaflets with their ovipositors and feed on the exudates, which results in a stippled
pattern on the leaflets. In some feeding punctures, eggs are inserted just under the epidermis.
When the eggs hatch, leafminer larvae feed on the leaf mesophyll tissue, forming a serpentine
mine that later becomes a blotch. The mining activity of the larvae reduces the photosynthetic
capacity of the plant and under heavy infestation, may cause dessication and premature
leaf fall. Leaf miner damage at times may destroy young seedlings or result in leaf drop and
reduction in crop yield. Upto 30% yield losses have been reported in chickpea in Syria.
Lima bean pod broer : Lima bean pod borer feeds on several leguminous crops
especially cowpea, fieldpea, greengram, horse gram, lentil, lima bean, pigeonpea and
sunhemp. The presence of a hole on the pod surface, dry light coloured frass and webbing in
the pod are indications of infestation. Individual seeds have holes and internal portions are
gutted. The pods are partially or completely consumed inside. Externally the pods have a
shrunken appearance and small surface punctures. Larvae generally feed on maturing pods.
Lygus bugs : Lygus lineolaris and L. hesperus are polyphagous pest on several crops
and weeds. Economic losses have been recorded in alfalfa, cotton, lentil, lima bean, snap
bean, soybean and tomato. Lygus bugs puncture the tissue and feed on immature reproductive
structures, causing chalky spot syndrome-on lentil seeds, which increases the prevalence
of shriveled, unfilled pods and seed abortion. Incidence of growing point injuries by Lygus
spp. is a serious problem on cauliflower in Sweeden.
Whitefly : Bemisia tabaci pierces stylet in plant tissue and suck sap from phloem
tissue. Plant becomes yellow week by excessive drainage of sap and leaves are deformed.
They produce large amount of sugar excreta (honey dew) on which black sooty mold grows
which interfere the photosynthesis. It also acts as a vector of Gemini virus especially in
cucurbitaceae, leguminaceae, malvaceae, solanaceae & Euphorbiaceae families.
Termite : Termites are polyphagous insect pests of crops and often a limiting factor in
their successful cultivation. Termite damage plants wilt, dry up and can be easily pulled up.
Termite damage the crops right from their sowing till harvest. Damage due to termites may
lead to poor germination in crops. However, due to their incidence in grown up plants, the
yields are reduced drastically.
SUGGESTED READING
Chen, W., Sharma, H.C. and Muehlbauer, F.J. 2010. Compendium of chickpea and lentil diseases
and pests. The American Phytopathological Society, Minnesota (USA). pp. 99-125.
Lal, R. and Rohilla, H.R. 2007. Insect pests of pulses and their management. Natnl. J. Pl.
Improv. 9 (2) : 67-81.
Sachan, J.N. and Lal, S.S. 1997. Integrated pest management of pod borer complex of chickpea
and pigeonpea in India. In : Recent Advances in Pulses Research. (A.N. Asthana and Masood
Ali Eds.). Indian Society of Pulses Research and Development, Kanpur. pp. 349-376.
82
DIAGNOSIS AND CROP LOSS ASSESSMENT FOR

ECONOMICALLY IMPORTANT PLANT DISEASES
S. K. Gandhi
Department of Plant Pathology
It is a well known fact that diseases caused by fungi, bacteria and viruses can lead to
high losses of crops. When the epidemic is spread over large areas and if all plants are
more or less susceptible to the devastating pathogens, there can be complete losses of
crops. Further diseases can result not only in quantitative yield loss but also in qualitative
losses due to lower food quality and to decreased potential for storage and mycotoxin
contamination.
Impact of Plant Diseases : There are several examples of disease epidemics that have
caused remarkable food deficiencies or depletion of a complete crop out of a particular area.
The late blight of potato caused by Phytophthora infestans has led to periods of starvation
by epidemic spread in Ireland during 1845 and 1846. The outbreak of coffee rust caused by
Hamileia vastatrix in early 1870s led to a depletion of coffee from India and Sri Lanka which
then became substituted by tea. In the 1930s the entire banana industry in Central and
South America was threatened with extinction by Sigatoka disease ( Mycospharella musicola).
In France, between 1878 and 1882, the wine industry was threatened due to the introduction
of downy mildew from U.S.A. In India, the 1942 Bengal famine was perhaps largely due to
Helminthosporium disease of rice. In 1946-47, the wheat rust epidemic was responsible for
food shortage in India. During 1969-70 there occurred one of the most devastating epidemics
in USA due to the southern corn leaf blight, when cytoplasmic male sterility used for the
production of hybrid seed maize was introduced into almost all maize varieties. Another
instance of serious loss by a disease is due to red rot of sugarcane which reached its peak
in 1938-39 in the white sugar belt of India. In the badly affected areas, most of the mills
could crush only 33 per cent of their normal quantity. Likewise there are several examples
of catastrophic diseases which had disastrous consequences for man and made a drastic
impact on his affairs. These examples amply prove that diseases can entirely change the
course of history and economy of a country. The advances made in food production due to
green revolution can be lost if proper attention is not given to plant diseases and other
pests.
Diagnosis of Plant Diseases : On the basis of examination of the typical symptoms
present in a diseased plant, it becomes fairly easy to diagnose the diseases and also the
pathogen involved. In most cases, however, a detailed examination of the symptoms and an
inquiry into characteristics beyond the obvious symptoms are necessary for a correct
diagnosis.
A. Symptoms due to character and appearance of the visible pathogen or its structures :
A parasite is present in all the parasitic diseases but in most cases the growing vegetative
portion is within the host tissues and is, therefore, invisible. In some cases, almost the
entire body of the parasite, including both vegetative and reproductive portions, is external
to the host and is, then, readily seen, partly on account of its mass. In a number of diseases
the structure of the pathogen constitutes the most prominent symptom of the disease. Several
of such symptoms are :
83
a ) Mildew : In mildews the pathogen is seen as a growth on the surface of the host.
They appear as white, grey, brownish, purplish patches of varying size on leaves,
herbaceous stems, or fruits. In downy mildews the superficial growth is a tangled
cottony or downy layer, while in the powdery mildews enormous numbers of spores
are formed on superficial growth of the fungus giving a dusty or powdery appearance.
b) Rusts : The rusts appear as relatively small pustules of spores, usually breaking
through the host epoidermis. The pustules may be either be dusty or compact, and
red, brown, yellow or black in colour.
c) Smuts : The word smut means a sooty or charcoal-like powder. The affected parts
of the plant show a black or purplish-black dusty mass., These symptoms usually
appear on floral organs, particularly the ovulary and the pustules are usually
considerably larger than those of the rusts. Smut symptoms may also be found on
stem and leaves.
d) White blisters : On leaves of cruciferous and other plants there may be found
numerous white blister-like pustules which break open and expost powdery masses
of spores. Such diseases have been commonly known as white rusts. Since there
is nothing common between them and the true rusts they may be more appropriately
called white blisters.
e ) Scab : The term scab refers to a roughened or crust-like lesion or to a freckled
appearance of the diseased organ,. In some diseases of this type the parasite
appears at a certain stage, in others it is never seen.
f) Bunt : A disease in which the grain contents are replaced by odorous smut spores.
g) Mould : A sooty or black coating on foliage or on fruits formed by dark hyphae of the
fungi. Sometimes it is due to green coloured hyphae of fungi, then it is called green
mould.
h) Exudations : In several bacterial diseases, such as in bacterial blight of paddy and
fire blight of pome-fruits, masses of bacteria ooze out to surface of the affected
organ where they may be seen as drops of various size or as thin smear over the
surface.
i) Ergot : Appearance of creamy droplets of a sticky liquid exuding from young florets
of infected heads which are soon replaced by hard sclerotia of the fungus e.g. ergot
of pearl millet.
B) Symptoms due to some effect on, or change in, the host plant :
As a result of disease there may be marked change in the form, size colour, texture, or
habit of the plant or some of its organs. Such changes are ususlly readily observed and
often constitute the most prominent symptom of the diseases. In most diseases these
changes are brought about through the presence and activity or life processes of some
foreign living organism and reaction of the host tissues to such activity,. The pathogen may
be found within the affected tissues, or upon the surface, or in some cases it may develop
certain structures internally and others externally.
a ) Colour changes : The green pigment may disappear entirely and its place may be
taken by a yellow pigment. When this yellowing is due to lack of light the condition
is known as etiolation . A similar condition may be brought about by the influence of
low temperature, lack of iron, excess of lime, presence of certain virus diseases or
84
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS OF ECONOMICALLY IMPORTANT PLANT DISEASES
Wheat yellow rust
Downy mildew of bajra
Late blight on
Potato Tubers
Wheat stem rust
Wheat loose smut
Rice blast
Tomato early blight
Ergot of Bajra
Leaf curl of chilli
Tomato late blight
Early in season
Same disease affects
tomato, potato, eggplant,
pepper
Look for target like spots
Potato late blight
Alternaria leaf spot

of crucifer
Early Blight of Potato and Tomato

Alternaria solani (Fungus)
from the disturbances caused by fungal and bacterial diseases. In these cases the
yellowing is known as chlorosis . Uneven development of chlorophyll producing light
green patches with dark green areas is known as mosaic, the most common symptom
in viral diseases.
b) Over growth or Hypertrophy : In some diseases there is abnormal increase in size
of one or more organs of plant or plant parts. This is usually due to the stimulation of
host tissues to excessive growth due to hyperplasia (increase in number of cell) or
hypertrophy (increase in size of cell) or both. Over growths are of various forms in
different diseases and are known by different names.
i)
Gall : Abnormal development of infected plant parts may be due to hypertrophy

or hyperplasia. It may be more or less globosely, elongated or irregular e.g.
Crown gall, Club root of Crucifers.
ii)
Witches broom : Numerous slender branches arise from a limited region in

close clusters just like a broom e.g. Witches broom of Potato.
iii) Curling : It refers to the abnormal bending or rolling or folding of plant organs
particularly in leaf due to localized out growth of host tissues.
iv)
Enations : Over growth or tumour like structure appear on the surface of leaf
along the veins.
v)
Phyllody : Floral parts develop into leaf like structures.
vi)
Vein clearing : In this case veins become light green and clearer than the
surrounding interveinal area.
vii) Vein banding : In this case tissues close to the veins become darker than the
surrounding interveinal tissue.
c) Atrophy or Dwarfing or Stunting : It is abnormal development of most of the plant
parts causing reduction in plant height, leaf size and other organs, most common in viral
diseases.
d) Necrosis : These symptoms that results from death of cell, tissue or organ due to parasitic
activity of the organism.
i)
Blight : Rapid killing or sudden death of plant or plant parts. It gives burnt
appearance.
ii)
Blotch : Appearance of large, irregular lesions on leaves, shoots and stems.
iii)
Canker : Necrotic lesions often sunken in the cortical tissues of stem, leaves or
twigs.
iv)
Anthracnose : Appearance of black sunken lesions on leaf, stem and fruit and
pathogen produce fruiting bodies i.e. acervuli on infected tissues.
v)
Die back : Dying of plant organs especially the branches from top to downwards.,
vi)
Damping off : Death of the seedlings near the soil level as a result of which the
seedling topples down on the ground.
vii) Rot : The affected tissue die, decompost and turn brown It takes place due to the
production of cell wall degrading enzymes by the pathogen.
85
viii) Lesion : It refers to the distinct and localized spot on the host tissues.
ix)
Spots : Usually defined as circular or oval shape with central necrotic areas
surrounded by variously coloured zones, some times they are restricted by veins.
x)
Shot hole : Circular hole in leaves resulting from the drooping out or detaching of
the central necrotic areas.
xi)
Streak or stripe : Development of minute linear lesions known as streak.

Enlargement of streaks into variable length and breadth are known as stripes.
xii) Wilt : The leaves and other succulent parts loose their turgidity and droop.
Economically Important Plant Diseases :
The disease scenario in different regions may vary with the changes in weather and soil
conditions. In some cases major pathogen from one region are not present in other areas
owing to adaptability of the pathogens to varied conditions. The major crop diseases and
losses they may cause are summarized here.
Amongst cereals, wheat and barley are highly prone to infection by rusts and smut.
Three rusts i.e. Black rust or stem rust, brown rust or leaf rust and yellow rust or stripe
occur on leaves, leaf sheath, stem, glumes and earheads. Yield losses depend on the stage
at which plants are affected and prevalence of congenial environmental conditions. Loose
smut affects the ear heads, which are transformed into black powdery mass. In recent years
flag smut is also causing losses in yield in some areas. Karnal bunt affects the grain quality
adversely. Powdery mildew causes premature drying of leaves. In barley, stripe disease
attacks the foliage which later on dry and give shredded look.
In rice, blast is the most damaging disease followed by sheath blight. Bacterial blight,
Bakanae and false smut are reported to cause economic losses. In rice production, the loss
potential of pathogen exceeds 20% in Europe, North America and East Asia where productivity
is high. The infection pressure is low in other regions.
In pearl millet, downy mildew, smut and ergot diseases cause major economic losses.
Various types of smuts in sorghum adversely affect grain yield while leaf spot diseases
reduce the fodder quality. Diseases in maize production are of lower economic importance
than weeds or pests. However, foot rot, stalk rot and head smut cause considerable losses
when not controlled.
Wilt, root rot, angular leaf spot and leaf curl are the most important yield-limiting factors
in cotton. Being a major cash crop for developing countries and in general, crop protection is
intensive. Red rot in sugarcane is a major disease adversely affecting both yield and quality
of the crop. Other diseases causing economic losses are ratoon stunting grassy shoot and
smut.
In oilseed crop of rapeseed and mustard, white rust, Alternaria blight, downy mildew and
white stem rot are the principal diseases hampering the production. Amongst pulses;
Ascochyta blight and wilt in chickpea; wilt and Phytophthora blight in pigeonpea; yellow
mosaic view in mungbean are the major disease problems.
Late blight caused by Phytophthora infestans is considered to be the major yield limiting
disease in potato. Other diseases of economic importance include black scurf, soft rot and
few viral diseases. Similarly the vegetables like cucurbits, tomato, cabbage, peas, carrot,
brinjal and chillies are affected by several diseases affecting yield and quality adversely.
86
Major fruit crops like citrus (lemon, sweet orange, grape fruit), pome fruits (apple, pear),
banana, grapes, guava and ber are attacked by major diseases like citrus canker, gummosis,
scab, anthracnose, wilt and powdery mildew etc.
Diseases and Crop Loss Assessment :
Crop losses due to diseases can be derived from simple, standardized crop loss
assessment experiments conducted under normal farm practice and also involve use of
statistical techniques to summarize and evaluate the validity of the experimental results.
Techniques for measuring disease and yield loss involve:
a ) Disease assessment : Since disease assessment is the process that generates all the
data that quantify the progress of disease, it is therefore, critical that assessment methods
are well defined and standardized. Two principal criteria that must be satisfied prior to
using the method are that different observers must be able to record similar assessments
consistently which are also well correlated with actual or measured diseased area.
Secondly, the assessments must be achieved simply and quickly. Assessment keys
and standard area diagrams have been developed for many diseases.
b) Yield Loss Measurement : Yield measurement is as important as disease measurement.
There is a need to adopt a technique that will allow the data to be standardized and
collated. This is usually achieved by designating the yield of the healthy plot at each
location as the reference yield. Yield loss is calculated as the difference in yield between
a diseased and healthy treatment expressed as percentage of the yield of the healthy
plot at each location. Several workers have used different methods to estimate crop
losses quantitatively and models have been developed for different regions. Much of the
data published on yield losses are very location specific with limited extrapolation
potential, or they reflect worst case scenarios with little corresponding information of
prevailing disease state in farmers fields. There is still a need to develop large area
databases on crop yield and disease losses so that rational decisions may be made on
resource allocation for crop protection.
SUGGESTED READING
Agrios, G.N. 2005 Plant Pathology . Academic Press, New York, 922 pp.
Chiarappa, L. 1971. FAO Manual on the Evaluation and Prevention of Losses by Pests,
Disease and Weeds , Published by FAO and CAB.
Roelfs, A.P., Singh, R.P., Saari, E.E. 1992. Rust diseases of wheat. In : Concepts and
Methods of Disease Management . Mexico, D.F., CIMMYT, 81 pp.
Waller, J.M., Lenne, J.M. and Waller, S.J. 2002. Plant Pathologists Pocket Book . CABI
Publishing, Oxon, U.K., 516 pp.
87

DUE TO NEMATODE PESTS IN IMPORTANT CROPS
R. K. Walia
Department of Nematology
Plant parasitic nematodes are ubiquitous and more than 1800 species have been recorded
so far. Being obligate parasites, they must draw their nutrition from plant hosts, which in
turn debilitate the plants to some extent. The extent of direct damage by the nematodes to
plants depends on several factors viz., nematode density in soil, nature of parasitism
(ectoparasite, endoparasite), host susceptibility, cropping pattern, edaphic factors (soil
texture, moisture etc.) and ambient climatic conditions (mainly temperature and moisture).
Nematodes, by themselves, rarely kill the plants to ensure their own survival. However, in
nature, they interact with other microorganisms (fungi, bacteria, viruses) leading to disease
complexes, in which nematodes play the role of incitant, aggravator, vector or predisposer
(indirect damage) of plants to secondary attack by plant pathogens.
NATURE OF DAMAGE
Direct Damage
Nematodes feed upon plant cells and ingest their contents. Individual cells are devoid of
their cytoplasm one after the, resulting in their death thus causing necrotic areas.
Intercellular and intracellular migration within the plant tissues may cause mechanical
injury to the cells.
Certain nematodes induce special feeding areas in the plant tissues by their enzymatic
action e.g., giant cells produced by root-knot nematode; syncytia produced by cyst
nematodes. These feeding areas formed in vascular tissues disrupt the flow of water and
nutrients from roots to shoots, resulting in poor plant growth.
The growing tips of the roots may be killed due to nematode attack. This results in
cessation of growth and malformation of the overall root system. Nutrient uptake is
hampered leading to reduced plant growth and yield.
Some nematodes cause abnormalities in plant growth due to hormonal imbalance e.g.,
production of root galls by root-knot nematode. The functioning of the galled roots is
adversely affected due to lack of feeder roots and poor absorption and translocation of
nutrients.
Nematodes may also feed upon the germinating seedlings (plumule) which may result in
the pre-emergence death of seedlings.
Feeding and death of specialized tissues result in direct loss of yield, e.g., feeding on
floral primordia by wheat seed gall nematode leads to formation of galls instead of seeds;
destruction of epidermal cells lining resin canals in pine trees by pine wood nematode
causes cessation of resin production.
Indirect Damage
Plant parasitic nematodes are invariably involved with various other microorganisms
present in the rhizosphere in many ways, leading to disease complexes. Such interactions
88
of pathogenic organisms are common in nature, and the damage to plants is often
compounded, than that caused by either pathogen alone. The role played by nematodes in
such disease complexes may be accounted as follows.
Mechanical wounding agents: Nematodes cause micropunctures on the root surface
by their stylets while feeding and penetrating, which may facilitate the infection of several
types of fungal and bacterial pathogens present in the rhizosphere.
Host modifiers: Nematode feeding brings about certain biochemical and physiological
changes in the plant host. This altered physiology of the host may be more conducive
for fungal and bacterial attack. Nematode feeding may provide a nutritionally improved
substrate, obstruct plant defence mechanism or destroy chemical antagonists within
the host, thereby rendering the plant more favourable for colonization by secondary
pathogens. The necrotic/lesioned tissues resulting from nematode feeding are readily
attacked by saprophytic microorganisms, causing rotting of such tissues.
Rhizosphere modifiers: The qualitative and quantitative changes in the root exudates
of nematode-infected plants may attract secondary pathogens present in the rhizosphere.
Resistance breakers: In several cases nematodes have been implicated to break the
resistance in crop varieties to certain fungal diseases. It may be because of mechanical
wounding or alteration of host physiology by the nematodes.
Vectors of pathogens: Nematodes may carry on their surface several types of fungal or
bacterial spores from one spot to another or even inside the plant tissues. But most
important is their role in virus transmission. A select group of plant parasitic nematodes
(Xiphinema, Longidorus , Trichodorus, Paratrichodorus ) is capable of acquiring, retaining
and transmitting specific viruses while feeding on plant hosts. The virus particles are
specifically adsorbed and retained inside the spear and cuticular lining of oesophageal
lumen.
Interference in nitrogen fixation: The damage to the nitrogen fixing rhizobial nodules
by several plant parasitic nematodes is established. Nematodes may cause overall
reduction in the root system including nodulation, reduce the number and size of the
nodules, or may invade and feed on the nodules directly.
SPECIFIC DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS
Root-knot nematodes ( Meloidogyne spp.)
The above-ground symptoms are not diagnostic. Stunted growth, yellowing of foliage,
wilting during hot dry periods particularly in broad leaf crops, undersized fruits and reduced
yields are the common symptoms; and are similar to those induced by nutrient deficiency
and water stress. Damage is most pronounced when infection occurs in the early stage of
plant growth, particularly in transplanted crops where seedling mortality may also occur.
Heavily infected seedlings fail to establish or may remain moribund. Plant mortality is rare
but whenever it occurs, is the result of secondary infection by other pathogens.
Below-ground symptoms are typical. Formation of root galls or knots is diagnostic of
root-knot nematode infection. The intensity of galling and size of the galls are variable
depending upon root-knot nematode species, nematode population, susceptibility of the
crop, and age of the crop. Generally, in the initial stage of plant growth, galls (primary galls)
are small. But as the nematode completes one life cycle, re-infection by second generation
J2 leads to formation of more galls, the adjacent galls coalesce to form bigger compound
galls, which are easily visible at later stages of crop growth.
89
Vegetable crops like tomato, brinjal, okra are highly susceptible and form heavy galling,
but chillies have very small galls.
Cucurbits usually have very big galls, so much so that the entire root may become
swollen. In many such crops, usually eggmasses are formed inside the galls.
Fleshy edible parts of the crops like carrot, radish and turnip bear small sized galls on
feeder roots, but tap roots frequently show forking as a result of nematode infection.
On tuberous crops like potato, besides roots, infection may extend to tubers also.
Infected tubers show pimple-like growth on the surface, greatly reducing their market
value. Similarly, in groundnut, pods are also infected causing huge qualitative losses.
In leguminous plants, nematode galls are distinct from rhizobium nodules. While the
bacterial nodules are side appendages, soft and can be detached easily, the nematode
galls are axial swellings of the root itself, hard in consistency, and do not detach. But
nematode infection hampers bacterial nitrogen fixation due to reduced root system,
reduction in number and size of nodules, and infection of nodules themselves.
Size of galls is relatively small in woody roots like in cotton, grapes etc.
Cereal cyst nematode ( Heterodera avenae )
Patches of stunted plant growth and chlorosis appear when the crop is about 1-2 months
old. With continuous cropping of hosts, such patches gradually increase in size. Tillering is
greatly reduced, culms become thinner and weaker. The affected plants may flower
prematurely and earheads bear fewer grains. In severe infestations, there may not be any
grain formation.
Roots become typically bushy with slight swellings marking the sites of nematode
infection. Appearance of white glistening females on the roots during January/February is
the only confirmation of nematode infection.
Potato cyst nematodes ( Globodera rostochiensis and G. pallida )
Introduction of cysts to a new field often goes unnoticed as the nematodes may not
induce any symptoms for several years till a sizeable population is attained.
The symptoms appear as small patches of poorly growing plants. Foliage shows wilting
during hot day time and recover by evenings. The plants remain stunted, foliage starts turning
yellow from older leaves, which wither away gradually; leaving only a few green leaves on the
top. Root system is poorly developed, tuber formation is drastically reduced in number and
size. Spherical white females of the size of a pin-head can easily be observed on the roots
of infected plants which can be easily uprooted.
Lesion nematodes ( Pratylenchus spp.)
The above-ground symptoms are not diagnostic and are a manifestation of malfunctioning
of roots. These include stunting, yellowing of leaves, defoliation, poor fruiting and dieback.
Roots, however, show discrete elliptical lesions in the initial stages of infection. The lesions
coalesce as the infection spreads leading to girdling of the roots due to extensive necrosis.
The overall root system is drastically reduced. The necrotic lesions are often colonised by
secondary pathogens and rotting sets in.
Rice root nematode ( Hirschmanniella spp.)
The above-ground symptoms are not clearly manifested and can easily be confused with
90
nutrient deficiency. In general, there is arrested growth, poor tillering, reduced number of
earheads and grain weight. On the roots, the initial necrosis intensifies and by the time crop
matures, the entire root system appears brownish and reduced in size.
Burrowing nematode ( Radopholus similis )
The disease caused by R. similis on banana is known by different names viz., blackhead
disease, banana decline, rhizome rot, banana root rot. The above-ground symptoms are
manifested by yellowing of outer whorl of leaves, which spreads to inner leaves quickly. This
is followed by withering of foliage and fruit bunches, eventually the plant dies. Reddish
elongated lesions that first appear on the roots, gradually enlarge and coalesce leading to
rotting. The root system is devoid of laterals and overall size of the root system is drastically
reduced. Rotting extends to rhizomes also. The plants at the bearing stage often topple
over during high winds due to poor anchorage.
Nematode feeding and movement cause severe necrosis and cavity formation within the
cortex. The cavities coalesce and break down leading to tunnel formation. Eggs are often
laid in these cavities, while nematodes move to adjacent healthy tissues. Three to four
weeks after infection, deep cracks appear on the root surface due to breakdown of the
tunnels.
R. similis causes yellows disease in black pepper. The first symptoms appear as
yellowing of a few leaves which gradually extend to all over the vine, leading to complete
defoliation. The growth of the vine ceases, berry production reduces drastically and the
vines become unproductive. Death of the vines soon follows. The roots are devoid of laterals,
there is extensive necrosis on the main roots.
Citrus nematode ( Tylenchulus semipenetrans )
T. semipenetrans causes slow decline or simply citrus decline of citrus. The aboveground symptoms are generally not discernible during the first few years, during which time
the nematodes multiply and attain pathogenic levels. Citrus trees more than 7-8 years old
exhibit decline symptoms, which are manifested by yellowing of leaves, defoliation, premature
shedding of fruits, reduction in the number and size of fruits, increasing number of dead
twigs from top, and weak seasonal flushes.
The feeder roots, however, show typical symptoms. The infested roots appear dark,
while healthy roots are creamish. Heavily infected roots are covered with soil particles which
do not go inspite of washing. Such roots are slightly more in diameter and the cortical
portion can easily be separated from the central stelar part.
Reniform nematode ( Rotylenchulus reniformis )
The infested plants do not exhibit any diagnostic symptoms either on shoots or on
roots. General stunted growth, yellowing of leaves, wilting, and deterioration in the quality
of fruits are commonly observed in most of the hosts. Malformation and discolouration of
seeds in castor have been reported, which adversely affect the quality and quantity of oil.
Infected roots generally show necrosis, and feeder roots may be destroyed.
Wheat seedgall nematode ( Anguina tritici )
The nematode alone causes earcockle disease of wheat. The disease is locally known
as Gegla , Sehun or Mamni.
91
Infected seedlings show basal swelling of the stem after about 20-25 days of germination.
Subsequently, the leaves emerging from such seedlings are crinkled, curled and twisted.
The infected plants are generally stunted and grow prostrate with increased tillering. The
earhead formation may be preponed. The affected earheads are generally shorter and broader.
Glumes may be loosely arranged, and galls replace the seeds. The galls or cockles are
smaller, dark brown or black, and irregular in shape compared to healthy seeds.
A. tritici is often associated with a bacterium, Clavibacter tritici (= Corynebacterium

tritici ) in causing another disease - the yellow ear rot, which is locally known as tundu.
The nematode acts as a vector in this disease complex. The initial symptoms (basal swelling,
crinkling, curling and twisting of leaves) of tundu are similar to those of earcockle disease.
However, at the later stage, if high humidity and low temperature conditions prevail longer,
the bacterium multiplies very rapidly and appears in the form of yellow slimy ooze on the
surface of leaves and stem. This sticky substance may cover earheads as well. The earheads
often fail to emerge out of the boot leaves and there may not be any grain formation. Upon
drying, the yellow sticky ooze becomes brittle and ultimately turns brown. Tundu is more
damaging than earcockle.
White tip nematode ( Aphelenchoides besseyi )
A. besseyi causes white-tip disease of rice, which is a typical seed-borne disease.

The seedling growth is stunted and germination is delayed. The most diagnostic symptom,
however, is the upper 3-5 cm portion of leaf tip turning white or pale yellow at the tillering
stage. This may appear at nursery stage. Further, the flag leaf is twisted and shortened at
the apical portion. The infected plants bear shorter panicles and less number of spikelets;
the kernels are small and deformed in the terminal portion. Secondary panicles may be
produced from lower nodes if the panicle is sterile. The nematode also causes reduction in
the total lipid content of the grains.
Mushroom nematode , Aphelenchoides composticola
Among the several species of Aphelenchoides reported in association with mushroom,
A. composticola is considered the most important and is widespread throughout the world,
including India. A. composticola is basically mycophagous and feeds on the fungus mycelium.
The growth of Agaricus bisporus (button mushroom) is adversely affected and fruiting is
drastically reduced. The nematode may be introduced into the mushroom beds along with
compost, casing soil, irrigation water, insects etc., and attains peak populations quickly
since the life cycle duration is very short (8 days at 23 C). An initial number of 9 nematodes
per 300 g compost can destroy the mycelium completely. The initial symptoms of nematode
infection may appear as spawn turning brown followed by sparse and patchy appearance of
the mycelium, which turns stingy in nature. The compost surface also sinks; followed by
extremely poor sporophore yields, and reduction in the duration of crop.
Foliar nematodes ( Aphelenchoides fragariae and A. ritzemabosi )
Both A. fragariae and A. ritzemabosi are temperate climate species and are widespread
in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. In India, these have been
reported from Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh. The preferred hosts of A. ritzemabosi
are plants belonging to family Compositae with chrysanthemum as the main host; while A.
fragariae is considered a problem on strawberry but its host range extends to families
Liliaceae, Ranunculaceae, Primulaceae, besides some ferns.
Both the species feed ectoparasitically on buds and endoparasitically on leaves. During
high humidity and rainy season, the nematodes ascend up the stem in a thin film of water
92
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS OF NEMATODE PESTS' ATTACK IN IMPORTANT CROPS
Root knot disease of tomato and potato tuber

(C.O . Meloidogyne sp.)
Earcockle disease of wheat

(Left = Healthy)
(C.O. Anguina tritici)
Rice root knot disease

(C.O. Meloidogyne graminicola)
Molya disease of wheat (inset = infected

roots) (C.O. Heterodera avenae )
Tundu disease of wheat (Left = Healthy)

(C.O. Anguina tritici + Clavibacter tritici )
White tip disease of rice

(C.O. Aphelenchoides
besseyi )
Swollen Ufra
Ripe Ufra
Ufra disease of rice (C.O. Ditylenchus angustus)
Slow Decline of Citrus (C.O. Tylenchulus semipenetrans)
Infected roots
Healthy roots
covering the plant, enter the leaves through stomatal openings, and feed on the mesophyll
tissues. Infection spreads from lower to upper leaves, and the symptoms appear as tiny
brown spots on leaves initially, which enlarge to acquire inter-veinal angular spots. Nematode
feeding on buds results in a blind plant ( A. fragariae on strawberry) or undersized and
distorted flowers ( A. ritzemabosi on chrysanthemum). The nematodes can survive in a
quiescent stage inside the dormant buds or dried up leaf tissues. A. fragariae causes
cauliflower disease in strawberry in the presence of bacterium Clavibacter fasciens.
Rice stem nematode ( Ditylenchus angustus )
The first symptoms appear when the crop is two-three months old in the form of chlorosis
and yellow streaks on the upper leaves. Later two types of symptoms are manifested:
Swollen Ufra in which case the panicles fail to emerge and the stalks show a tendency to
branch; and Ripe Ufra when panicles emerge but are distorted and sterile. Such panicles
produce grains only near the tip; their peduncles turn brown and discoloured. The severity of
disease is enhanced under water logged conditions.
CROP LOSS ESTIMATIONS
Techniques : The economic importance of a plant parasitic nematode is judged by its
parasitic or pathogenic potential, geographic distribution and value of the crop. While the
economic threshold levels in respect of major nematode pests have been worked out on
specific crops, still however, it is very difficult to estimate the extent of losses inflicted by
nematodes to the crops due to certain inherent problems. The first and the foremost problem
is the heterogenous distribution of phytonematodes in a field. Further, the phytonematodes
occur in polyspecific communities. Crop loss assessments due to nematodes are usually
based on field trials involving the use of nematicides. The increase in crop yield following
nematicidal treatments compared to untreated plots is usually related to that avoided by
nematode control. Non-availability of exclusive nematicides is another hurdle in attributing
crop losses due to nematodes alone.
Methods of assessing crop losses due to phytonematodes have been discussed in detail
by Teng (1985), Ravichandra (2010) and Kanwar & Bajaj (2011).
Estimations : The most authentic and widely quoted estimate on crop losses due to
plant parasitic nematodes was provided by Prof. J. N. Sasser, who led an International
Meloidogyne Project during 1980s. Overall average annual loss of worlds major crops due
to damage by plant parasitic nematodes was estimated to be 12.3%, which amounts to US
$ 77 billions annually based on 1984 production figures and prices.
In India, the annual loss due to cereal cyst nematode, Heterodera avenae in wheat and
barley was estimated to be Rs 32 million and 25 million, respectively, in Rajasthan alone.
For seed gall nematode , Anguina tritici (alone or in combination with a bacterium), the
annual yield loss amounting to Rs 70 million was estimated in wheat in north India. An
annual loss of Rs 20 million was assessed in coffee due to lesion nematode, Pratylenchus
coffeae in an area of about 1000 hectares in Karnataka state alone (van Berkum & Seshadri,
1969). Another estimation on crop losses due to phytonematodes in India was made under
the aegis of AICRP (Nematodes). Twenty four different crops were selected, and a minimum
of 10% cultivated area under each crop was considered as infested. On this basis, the
national loss due to plant parasitic nematodes was worked out to be Rs 21068.73 million
(Jain et al ., 2007). Seshadri & Gaur (1998) estimated that nematodes inflict 5% losses in
oilseed crops, 8% in pulses, 10% in fruits and 12% in vegetable crops; the total amounting
to Rs 242,000 millions per year.
93
Estimated annual yield losses due to damage by plant parasitic nematodes world wide.
Life sustaining crops
Banana
Barley
Cassava
Chickpea
Coconut
Corn/Maize
Field bean
Millets
Oat
Peanut
Pigeonpea
Potato
Rice
Rye
Sorghum
Soybean
Sugarbeet
Sugarcane
Sweet potato
Wheat
Average
Loss (%)
Economically important crops
19.7
Cacao
6.3
Citrus
8.4
Coffee
13.7
Cotton
17.1
Cowpea
10.2
Eggplant
10.9
Forages
11.8
Grape
4.2
Guava
12.0
Melons
13.2
Misc. others *
12.2
Okra
10.0
Ornamentals
3.3
Papaya
6.9
Pepper
10.6
Pineapple
10.9
Tea
15.3
Tobacco
10.2
Tomato
7.0
Yam
10.7
Average
Overall average 12.3%
Loss (%)
10.5
14.2
15.0
10.7
15.1
16.9
8.2
12.5
10.8
13.8
17.3
20.4
11.1
15.1
12.2
14.9
8.2
14.7
20.6
17.7
14.0
*Additional miscellaneous crops of economic importance, especially for food or export

SUGGESTED READING
Jain, R. K., Mathur, K. N. and Singh, R. V. 2007. Estimation of losses due to plant parasitic
nematodes on different crops in India. Indian Journal of Nematology , 37 : 219-221.
Kanwar, R. S. and Bajaj, H. K. 2011. Assessment of crop losses due to nematodes. In:
Handbook of Practical Nematology (Eds. H. K. Bajaj, R. S. Kanwar & D. C. Gupta),
Scientific Publishers (India), pp. 97-100.
Ravichandra, N. G. 2010. Methods and Techniques in Plant Nematology . PHI Learning Pvt.
Ltd., New Delhi. 595 pp.
Sasser, J. N. (1989). Plant Parasitic Nematodes: The Farmers Hidden Enemy. A Cooperative
Publication of the Department of Plant Pathology and the Consortium for International
Crop Protection. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA, 115 pp.
Seshadri, A. R. and Gaur, H. S. 1998. Integrated nematode management approaches for
sustainable agriculture. In : Changing scenario in farming practices policies and
management. (Ed. Kushwaha, K. S.). Kushwaha Farm Book Series, pp. 296-319.
Teng, P. S. 1985. Crop loss assessment methods: Current situation and needs. In: An
Advanced Treatise on Meloidogyne, Vol. II. Methodology (Eds. K. R. Barker, C. C. Carter
& J. N. Sasser), A Co-op Publ. of Dept. of Plant Pathology and USAID, North Carolina
State University Graphics, pp. 149-158.
94
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS OF MACRO AND

MICRONUTRIENTS' DEFICIENCY IN IMPORTANT CROPS
J. P. Singh and Dev Raj
Department of Soil Science,
CCS Haryana Agricultural University Hisar
A mineral element is considered essential to plant growth and development if the element is
involved in plant metabolic functions and the plant can not complete its life cycle without
that element (Arnon and Stout 1939). The seventeen nutrients recognized essential for plant
growth among them carbon (C), hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P),
potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and sulfur (S) are macronutrients (nutrient
required in large quantity, more than that of Fe). Iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn),
copper (Cu), boron (B), molybdenum (Mo), chlorine (Cl) and nickel (Ni) are micronutrients
(nutrient required in small quantity). Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen constitute 90 to 95 percent
of the plant dry matter weight and are supplied through CO2 and water. Remaining six nutrients
are further divided in to primary (N, P, K) and secondary (Ca, Mg, S) nutrients. Micronutrient
are subdivided into micronutrient cations (Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, Ni) and anions (B, Mo, Cl) depending
upon the form in which plant absorb them (Tisdale et al ., 1993).
Usually the plant exhibits visual symptoms indicating a deficiency in a specific nutrient,
which normally can be corrected or prevented by supplying that nutrient. A nutrient is deficient
when the concentration of that nutrient is low enough to limit yield severely and distinct
deficiency symptoms are visible. With moderate or slight deficiencies, symptoms may not
Key for identifying nutrient deficiency symptoms in crops.
Nutrient
Nitrogen
Potassium
Magnesium
Phosphorus
Zinc
Sulphur
Iron
Manganese
Copper
Molybdenum
Chloride
Calcium
Boron
Deficiency symptoms
Symptoms appear first on older leaves.
Chlorosis starting from leaf tips.
Necrosis on leaf margins.
Chlorosis mainly between veins (which remain green).
Dark green or purple colour on stem, leaf is redish colour.
Pale brown or dusty brown necrotic patches on the middle of leaf,
shortened internodes.
Symptoms appear first on younger leaves.
Mottled yellow green leaves with yellowish veins.
Mottled yellow green leaves with green veins.
Brownish black spot (on legumes and potato).
Younger leaf has white tip. Leaf dropping.
Young leaf wilt and die along margins. Chlorosis of older leaves due
to inability to properly utilize nitrogen.
Wilting of upper leaves, then chlorosis.
Symptoms on bud leaves
Emergence of primary leaves delayed, terminal buds deteriorate, leaf
tips may be stuck together.
Leaves near growing point yellowed, growth bud appear white or
brownish dead tissue.
95
be visible, but yield will still be reduced. The deficiency symptoms are nutrient specific and
show different pattern in crops for different essential nutrients. One has to look carefully to
identify the deficiency symptoms since visual deficiency symptoms can be caused by many
factors other than a specific nutrient stress. A brief key to identify the nutrient deficiency
symptoms was given by Finck (1992) is presented here. However, a correct interpretation of
deficiency symptom requires a great deal of field experience and should always be
corroborated by the soil and plant analysis.
In Indian soils, multiple nutrient deficiencies can occur at the same time and some
symptoms are similar for different elements, making it even more confusing. Visual symptoms
are only the consequence of metabolic disturbances and different causes can lead to very
similar syndromes. Hence, nutrient deficiency can be confused with symptoms of disease,
drought, excess water, genetic abnormalities, herbicide and pesticide damage and insect
attack. Visual diagnosis of nutrient deficiency provides a valuable means of assessing the
nutritional conditions of a crop. It should be practiced only by experts as it requires much
experience. Furthermore, visual evaluation of nutrient stress should be used only as a
supplement to other diagnostic techniques (i.e., soil and plant analysis). Description of
nutrient deficiency symptoms in important crops along with colored plates showing typical
deficient symptoms in some crops (Sharma and Kumar, 2001) are presented here as a field
guide to identify the nutrient deficiency in the field and how they might be prevented or
remedied.
WHEAT ( Triticum aestivum Linn.)
Nitrogen
Deficiency symptoms :
i.
Deficient plants have slow growth rate, poor tillering resulting in reduced grain yield. The
stem has a spindly appearance.
ii. Deficiency symptoms i.e. yellowing or chlorosis usually appear first on lower leaves. In
mild deficiency the entire plant appears uniformly light green in color.
iii. Under severe N deficiency, a pale yellow chlorosis begins at the tip of old leaf and
progresses towards the leaf base.
iv. As the symptom advances, lower leaves turn pale brown, withers and die.
Amelioration :
i.
Apply N basal dose as per soil test based recommendation.
ii. Top dress soluble nitrogenous fertilizers such as urea in split doses.
iii. For quick recovery in standing crops, apply 2 to 2.5% urea solution as foliar spray and
repeat every 10 to 15 days till the deficiency symptoms disappear.
Phosphorus
i.
Deficient plants remain dark green, stunted, thin and spindly.
ii. The number of tillers and grain head size severely reduced resulting in low grain yield.
iii. Deficiency symptoms appear first in older leaves while young leaves usually remain
unaffected.
iv. Older leaves develop a dark purple color on the leaf tip which progresses towards the base.
v.
In sever deficiency situations, affected leaf tissues show purple discoloration.
vi. Stem and leaf sheaths of lower leaves express purple red color.
96
Amelioration :
i.
Drill/place basal dose of P as per soil test based P recommendations.
ii. Apply soluble P fertilizer with first irrigation in standing crops.

Potassium
i.
In the first instance there is only reduction in growth rate due to hidden hunger. The
deficiency only becomes recognizable as it advances in severity.
ii. Visual symptoms do not immediately appear due to K deficiency.

iii. On older leaves, symptoms appear as pale yellow chlorosis and necrosis begins at the
tips of leaves and advancing along the margins towards the base, usually leaving the
midvein alive and green.
iv. In acute deficiencies, leaves turn dark brown and die.
v.
Potassium deficient tillers die before producing heads, while mature tillers produce small
heads with few grains.
Amelioration :
i.
Apply K as basal dose as per soil test based fertilizer recommendations.
ii. In standing crops, apply soluble K fertilizers with irrigation water. Foliar sprays are usually
not recommended since large numbers of sprays are needed to fulfill the K requirement
of the crop.
Sulphur
i.
Deficiency symptoms appear first on younger leaves. General yellowing of the plant is
observed which is more prominent between the veins. Older leaves remain green.
ii.
In n advance stage, the pale yellow youngest leaves turn white without necrosis.
Amelioration:
i.
Apply recommended basal dose of S by mixing either elemental S or gypsum with surface
soil well before sowing.
ii. In deficient standing crops, apply water soluble sulphur fertilizer with irrigation water.
Iron
i.
A deficiency of Fe shows up first in the young leaves of plants.
ii. The young leaves develop interveinal chlorosis, which progresses rapidly over the entire
leaf.
iii. Under acute deficiency condition, the entire leaf bleaches to a bright yellow to white color.
Amelioration :
i.
In general soil application of inorganic iron sources are not effective in correcting Fe
deficiency.
ii. Correction of Fe deficiencies is done mainly with foliar application of Fe. Apply foliar
spray of ferrous sulphate or iron chelate (0.5 % solution) on standing crop. Foliar sprays
need to be repeated at 10 -15 days interval and 2 to 3 sprays are often required.
97
Zinc
i.
Wheat cultivars show strong hidden hunger for Zn and symptoms of Zn deficiency appear
only in acute deficiency conditions.
ii. Zinc is partly mobile in plants and deficiency symptoms first appear on middle leaves.
Initially upper (younger) and lower leaves remain unaffected.
iii. Occurrence of light green, yellow or white areas between the veins of leaves.
iv. As the deficiency become more severe, brown necrotic patches and extend outwards
towards the tip and base of the leaf.
Amelioration :
i.
Analyze the soil before sowing for plant available zinc and apply zinc sulfate commonly
at 25-30 kg/ha once every two years in zinc deficient soils.
ii. Spray zinc sulfate (0.5% solution) on standing crop 2 to 3 week after seedlings emergence.
Repeat the spray if deficiency persists.
Copper
Deficiency Symptoms :
i.
Deficient plants appear limp and wilted even in adequate soil moisture conditions.
ii. Severe deficient plants can have a twisted young leaves.

iii. In acute deficiency, young leaf tips turn pale brown, die and twist in to tight tubes- a
specific symptoms of Cu deficiency in wheat.
Amelioration :
i.
Soil and foliar applications are both effective.
ii. In standing crop apply copper sulfate (0.2 to 0.5 %) as a foliar spray. Repeated sprays
are required if symptoms reappear.
Manganese
Deficiency Symptoms :
i.
Manganese deficient plants are chlorotic and slow to mature.
ii. Develop small, roughly circular, grey white specks on older leaves.
iii. Leaves may kink or droop at the base of the blade or wherever the spotting is intense.
Amelioration :
i.
Analyze the soil before sowing for plant available manganese.
ii. Apply foliar spray of manganese sulphate @ 0.5 percent and repeat the spray if deficiency
persists.
RICE ( Oryza sativa L.)
Nitrogen
i.
When plants are deficient, they become stunted, thin and spindly and panicle size is
reduced. The number of tiller is also reduced.
ii. The chlorosis followed by necrosis is started at tip of older leaves and proceeds towards
the base. Slight delay in heading and kernel weight may also be reduced.
98
Amelioration :
i.
Apply soil test based fertilizer recommendations.
ii. Top dress soluble fertilizer such as urea in two split doses.
iii. For quick recovery in standing crop, apply 2 to 2.5% urea solution as foliar spray and
repeat every 10 to 15 days till the deficiency symptoms disappear.
Phosphorus
Deficiency :
i.
Phosphorus deficient plants usually shows stunted growth with erect and dark green
leaves. Number of tillers is also reduced.
ii. In some cultivars, a purple color may develop first on the leaf tips and progress towards
the leaf base.
iii. In severe deficiency, the entire leaf turns dark brown and dies.
Amelioration :
i.
Apply soil test based P fertilizer recommendations at the time of planting.
ii. In case P deficient symptoms appear in standing crop, apply water soluble P fertilizers
with irrigation water.
Potassium
i.
Visual deficiency symptoms for K are rarely noticed under field conditions. Rice has
strong hidden hunger symptom for K.
ii.
Under later growth stage, Yellowish brown discoloration followed by necrosis begins at
the tips of lower leaves and advances down the margins towards their base leaving the
mid vein and the surrounding tissue green.
iii. In acute deficiencies, rust brown spots on older leaves and leaf bronzing are formed.
Amelioration :
i.
Apply soil test based K fertilizer recommendations at the time of transplanting.
ii. Apply water soluble K fertilizers with irrigation water if K deficiency symptoms appear in
at the later stage of crop growth.
Sulphur
i.
Plants are stunted, thin and spindly with small heads leading to delayed maturity.
ii. Chlorosis appears first on younger leaves, while older leaves usually remain green.
iii. The yellowing appears uniformly on veins and interveinal tissues.
Amelioration :
i.
Analyze the soil before sowing to measure the amount of plant available sulphur.
ii. Apply recommended dose of S by mixing either elemental S or gypsum in to the soil
surface well before transplanting.
iii. In standing crop apply soluble S fertilizers with irrigation water.
00
Iron
i.
Iron deficiency appears first on younger leaves. The leaves show temporary fading of
interveinal tissues, Plant can recover and regain a normal appearance with time.
ii. If the deficiency persists, the interveinal chlorosis is developed on young leaves.
iii. In severe deficiency, emerging leaves become pale yellow to white and entire leaf bleaches
to a papery white appearance.
Amelioration :
i.
In general soil application of inorganic iron sources are not effective in correcting Fe
deficiency.
ii. Correction of Fe deficiencies is done mainly with foliar application of Fe. Apply foliar
spray of ferrous sulphate or iron chelate (0.5 % solution) on standing crop. Foliar sprays
need to be repeated at 10 -15 days interval and 2 to 3 sprays are often required.
Zinc
i.
Zinc deficiency symptoms in rice commonly occur between 2 to 4 weeks after

transplanting.
ii. Loss of turgidity of leaves. The dusty browns to bronze blotches are developed on lower
leaves.
iii. In severe deficiency, the small blotch enlarges and covers the whole leaf and affected
leaf turns bronze and dries.
Amelioration :
i.
Analyze the soil before sowing for plant available zinc and apply zinc sulfate commonly
at 25-30 kg/ha once every two years in zinc deficient soils.
ii. Two kg zinc sulphate/ha may be applied in crop nurseries

iii.
Spray zinc sulfate (0.5% solution) on standing crop 2 to 3 week after seedlings
emergence. Repeat the spray if deficiency persists.
Manganese
i.
Manganese deficiency is not common in rice under field conditions.
ii. Deficiency causes stunting of plants and interveinal chlorosis of new leaves but does not
have any effect on tillering.
Amelioration :
i.
Analyze the soil before sowing for plant available manganese.
ii. Apply foliar spray of manganese sulphate @ 0.5 percent and repeat the spray if deficiency
persists.
COTTON ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)
Nitrogen
i.
Cotton plant show stunted growth, less number of branches and yellowish green color of
foliage.
100
NUTRIENTS' DEFICIENCY SYMPTOMS IN DIFFERENT CROPS
Nitrogen deficiency in rice
Nitrogen deficiency in wheat
Phosphorous deficiency
P deficiency in maize
P deficiency in rice seedling

Potassium deficiency
K deficiency in rice
K deficiency in wheat
Sulphur Deficiency (advance stage)
Iron deficiency
Fe deficiency in rice
Fe deficiency in sugarcane
Sulphur Deficiency (early stage)
NUTRIENTS' DEFICIENCY SYMPTOMS IN DIFFERENT CROPS

Zinc deficiency
Zn deficiency in rice
Zn deficiency in wheat
Copper deficiency
Cu deficiency in wheat
Cu deficiency in young leaf of wheat
Mangnese deficiency
Mn deficiency in wheat
Mn deficiency in oat
ii. Yellowing first appears on older leaves . In severe cases of deficiency, leaves dry up and
shed prematurely.
iii. There is less number of boll and they also tend to shed due to nitrogen deficiency. Early
opening of bolls and number of seed and their size is also reduced.
Amelioration :
i.
Apply soil test based fertilizer recommendation.
ii. Top dress soluble fertilizers such as urea in two splits doses in variety and three splits
doses in hybrids.
iii. For quick recovery in standing crops, apply urea (2.5% solution) as foliar spray and
repeat every 10 to 15 days.
Phosphorus
i.
The most common indicator of P deficiency in cotton are dark green foliage, reduced
size of leaves, dwarf type of plants and less number of branches.
ii. Deficiency symptoms appear first in lower leaves.

iii. Flowering is delayed and boll retention is also poor.
iv. In severe deficiency, relatively few cotton bolls are developed and maturity is delayed.
Amelioration :
i.
ii. Apply water soluble P fertilizers in standing crop along with irrigation water in case P
deficiency is observed in the field.
iii. In standing crops, foliar spray of DAP (2%) at 10-15 days interval can also applied
Potassium
i.
Cotton rust or potash hunger is common in crop grown in K deficient soils.
ii. Yellowish white mottling appears on the older leaves. The leaves then change to light
yellow green and yellow spots appear between veins.
iii. In severe deficiency, the centre of the spots dies and numerous brown spots occur
around the margins and between the veins. The margins breakdown first and curls
downward.
iv. In late season K deficiency, the whole leaf finally becomes reddish brown in color, dries and
shed prematurely. The boll size is reduced and many bolls fail to open or they partly open.
Amelioration :
i.
ii. In case K deficiency appears, apply soluble K fertilizers with irrigation water in standing
crop. Foliar sprays are usually not recommended since large numbers of sprays are
needed to fulfill crop requirements.
Sulphur
i.
Sulphur is very important for cotton crop and its requirement is higher than
phosphorus.
ii. Deficiency symptoms appear first and become more severe on younger leaves. The young
leaves become pale yellow while older leaves usually remain green.
101
iii. In advance stage, the pale yellow youngest leaves turn white without necrosis.
iv. The pattern of yellowing on the entire leaf appears uniform, affecting both vein and
interveinal tissues to the same degree.
v.
The seed weight is reduced and oil content is also reduced in sulphur deficient plant.
Amelioration :
i.
Analyze the soil before sowing for available sulphur.
ii. Apply recommended dose of S as basal by mixing either elemental S or gypsum with
surface soil well before sowing.
iii. Apply SSP in place of DAP for providing both P and S to the cotton crop.
iv. In deficient standing crop, apply soluble sulphur fertilizer with irrigation water.
Iron
i.
About six weeks growth, plants grown in low iron supply soil show interveinal chlorosis
of young leaves.
ii. The interveinal chlorosis gradually intensifies and the young chlorotic leaves develop
brown necrotic spots.
iii. In acute deficiency, there is loss of lamina in the interveinal areas.
Amelioration :
i.
Analyze the soil before sowing for plant available iron.
ii. In standing crop apply a foliar spray of ferrous sulphate or iron chelates (0.5 % solution).
Foliar spray s need to be repeated in 10 -15 days interval and 2 to 3 sprays are often required.
Zinc
i.
Zinc deficiency symptoms in cotton appear three weeks of sowing, causing bronzing of
new and older leaves.
ii. The brown color spots extend from leaf tip towards the base and scorching of leaves
occurs on the margins.
iii. Interveinal chlorosis in the form of golden yellow color observed in the middle leaves.
iv. The old and middle leaves also show upward and downward cupping tendency (cup shape
of leaf).
v.
Plants bear less fruits and opening of boll is abnormal.
vi. The internodes are shortened and plant show bushy appearance.
Amelioration :
i.
Analyze the soil before sowing for plant available zinc.
ii. Apply zinc sulphate at 25-30 kg/ha once every two years in zinc deficient soils.
iii. In standing crop, spray 2.5 kg zinc sulphate plus un-slaked lime (500g) in 500 liter water
2 to 3 week after seedling emergence.
Manganese
i.
Leaf cupping and interveinal chlorosis on younger leaves indicates Mn deficiency.
ii. Manganese deficiency delays the flowering.

102
iii. Manganese deficiency symptoms resemble with Zn and Fe deficiency, so the soil and
plant testing is required to identify the deficient nutrient.
Amelioration :
iii. Analyze the soil before sowing for plant available manganese.
iv. Apply foliar spray of manganese sulphate @ 0.5 percent and repeat the spray if deficiency
persists.
PEARLMILLET (Pennisetum typhoides )
Nitrogen
i.
In mild deficiencies, the plant appears light green in color.
ii. In severe deficiency, a pale yellow chlorosis begins at the tip of older leaves, and then
progress towards the base along the midrib in a V- shaped pattern.
iii. In the advance stage, the pale yellow chlorosis is followed by pale brown necrosis.
Amelioration :
i.
ii. Top dress soluble fertilizer such as urea in two splits doses.
iii. For quick recovery in standing crop, apply urea (2%) solution as a foliar spray and
repeat the foliar spray every 10 to 15 days interval
Phosphorus
i.
Deficient plant appears dark green, stunted, thin and spindly and has delayed maturity.
ii. Dark green older leaves turn purple or purple red in color. Stem and leaf sheath of lower
leaves also turn purple red in color.
Amelioration :
i.
Apply soil test based P fertilizer recommendations as basal.
ii. Apply soluble P fertilizers with irrigation water if the P deficiency appears in standing crop.
Potassium
i.
Potassium deficiency causes shortening of the internodes, dwarfing of plants

general loss of healthy, green growth.
and a
ii. Marginal chlorosis develops on older leaves starting from the leaf tip and progresses
towards the base.
iii. The Chlorosis followed by necrosis advances down the margins towards the base leaving
the mid-vein and surrounding tissue pale green.
Amelioration :
i.
Apply full dose of K based on soil test at the time of sowing.
ii. In case K deficiency appears in standing crops, apply soluble K fertilizers with irrigation
water.
Sulphur
Deficiency :
i.
Deficient plants appear pale green, thin, spindly and stunted with delayed maturity.
103
ii. The young leaves become dull or bright yellow, while older leaves usually remain green.
iii. The yellowing of leaves appears uniformly on veins and interveinal tissues
Amelioration :
i.
Apply the soil test based dose of sulfur by mixing either elemental S or gypsum in to
the soil surface well before sowing.
ii. In deficient standing crops apply water soluble S fertilizers with irrigation water.
Iron
i.
In mild deficiencies the top most leaves of plants show temporary fading of interveinal
tissues.
ii. If the deficiency persists, the interveinal tissues of affected leaves turn a distinct pale
yellow with prominent green veins.
iii. In severe deficiency, the prominent green veins also fade and become light green to pale
yellow.
Amelioration :
i.
Analyze the soil before sowing to measure the amount of plant available iron.
ii.
In standing crop, apply 0.5% ferrous sulphate as foliar spray and 2 to 3 foliar sprays are
required at 10 days intervals.
Zinc
i.
The internodes are shortened and height is restricted.
ii. White to yellow broad bands of bleached tissue appear on each side of the midrib,
beginning at the base of the leaf. The midrib and the leaf margins remain green
iii. Zinc deficiency resemble to Fe and Mn deficiency, However, in the case of Fe and Mn
the interveinal striping runs the full length of the leaf, while in Zn deficiency it occurs
mainly on the basal half of the leaf.
iv. If the deficiency persists and becomes more severe, the youngest leaves turn pale green and
white broad bands appear between the midrib and margin in the basal half of the leaf.
Amelioration :
i.
Analyze the soil before sowing to measure the amount of plant available zinc.
ii. Apply 25 to 30 kg zinc sulphate/ha in zinc deficient soils at the time of sowing.
SUGGESTED READING
Arnon, D. I. and Stout, P. R. 1939. An essentiality of certain elements in minute quantity for
plants with special reference to copper. Plant Physiology , 14: 371- 375.
Finck, A. 1992. Fertilizers and their efficient use. In IFA World Fertilizer Manual , Paris,
France.
Sharma, M.K. and Kumar, P. 2011. . A Guide to Identifying and Managing Nutrient Deficiencies
in Cereal Crops. (K. Majumdar, T. Satyanarayana, R. Gupta, M.L. Jat, G.D. Sulewski,
D.L. Armstrong Eds.) International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI), Norcross, GA, USA.
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) EI Batan, Mexico.
Tisdale, S.L., Nelson, W.L., Beaton, J.D. and Havlin, J.L. 1993. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers.
Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi 110001.
104
DIAGNOSTICS AND ASSESSMENT OF LOSSES DUE

TO INSECT-PESTS IN STORED DRY FRUITS
Ajay K. Sood
CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur (H.P.)
Dry fruits have a long tradition of use dating back to the fourth millennium BC in
Mesopotamia , and are prized because of its sweet taste, nutritive value and long shelf life.
The dried seeds of nuts are eaten as raw, roasted, pureed or used as flour. Nuts are the best
source of protein, fats and vitamin E. They contain cholesterol free unsaturated fats,
magnesium, chromium, zinc and manganese. Today, dried fruit consumption is widespread.
Amongst the different dried fruits as listed in Table 1, half of the dried fruits trade comprises
raisins.
Table 1.
Dry fruits being produced/ consumed in India
Common name
Botanical name
Major producing states
Almond
Prunus amygdalus Batsch.
Himachal Pradesh, Jammu &

Kashmir, Uttrakhand
Apricot (Prunes)
Prunus armeniaca L.

Kashmir, Uttrakhand
Cashew nut
Anacardium occidentale L.
Andhra Pradesh, Goa,

Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra,
Orissa
Copra (Coconut)
Cocos nucifera L.
Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,

Kerala, Orissa, Tamilnadu
Date (Date palm)
Phoenix dactylifera L.
Gujarat, Rajasthan (Major

proportion being imported)
Pecan nut
Carya illinoensis (Wangenhi)

K. Koch

Kashmir, Uttrakhand
Pine cone (Chilgoza) Pinus gerardiana Wall. ex.D.Don Himachal Pradesh ( Major
proportion being imported)
Pistachio nut
Pistacia vera L.
Being imported
Raisin
Vitis vinifera L.
Andhra Pradesh, Haryana,

Karnataka, Maharashtra, Punjab,
Tamilnadu
Walnut
Juglans regia L.

Kashmir, Uttrakhand
All dried fruits are susceptible to insect infestation. Normally, dried fruits have moisture
content above 10% and, therefore, are liable to the attack by pest species. If fruits be dried
to a level where insects could not exist on them, they would become unattractive to
consumers. A fairly soft pliable product is desirable. The high temperatures used for removing
moisture are fatal to insects in the dry fruits. Wherever dried fruits are produced globally,
their chief insect pests are the same species. They have been distributed by commerce,
probably for several thousand years. A stored food product may become infested at the
105
processing plant or warehouse, in transit, at the store, or right in consumers home. Most of
the stored dry fruit insects are also the pests of stored grains or other commodities.
In India, eighteen insect-pests belonging to two insect orders namely, Coleoptera and
Lepidoptera have been found associated with important dry fruits (Table 2). In the forthcoming
text, the diagnostic features of major insect-pests of dry fruits based on the damage symptoms
and insect characteristics are being enumerated in the order of their significance.
I.
BEETLES AND WEEVILS
Sawtoothed Grain Beetle, Oryzaephilus surinamensis (Coleoptera: Silvanidae)

Merchant Grain Beetle, Oryzaephilus mercator
Both grubs and adults inflict damage. The insect is having preference to dry foods.
Adults and grub cause roughening of surface and off- odour in the food. Dry fruits with higher
percentage of broken, dockage and foreign matter sustain heavy infestation, which leads to
heating. Where sawtoothed grain beetles are numerous, populations of the Indian meal moth
do not build up to high levels.
Tobacco/ Cigarette Beetle, Lasioderma serricorne (Coleoptera: Anobiidae)
It is a cosmopolitan insect but prefers warm environment. It feeds on large number of
food varying from spices, dried fruis, chocolate, cocoa and tobacco leaves. Grub causes the
damage by making small galleries in the host.
Rust Red Flour Beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae)
Confused Flour Beetle, Tribolium confusum
The flour beetles are worldwide pest of milled products and processed foods. Flour beetles
are secondary pests of whole kernels/ grains and primary pests of flour and other milled
products. In grains, embryo or germ portion is preferred. They construct tunnels as they
move through flour and other granular food products. In addition they release gaseous quinines
in the food, which may produce a readily identifiable acid odour in heavy infestations.
Lesser grain borer/hooded grain borer, Rhizopertha dominica (Bostrychidae: Coleoptera)
Grubs and adults cause damage. Adults are voracious feeders. The grubs eat out the
starchy contents of the grains which are reduced to frass and waste flour. The first stage
larva is straight hence it can bore easily into sound grain but in the later stages of growth it
is curved, therefore, it becomes difficult for them to penetrate the grain. The grubs which are
unable to penetrate the grain feed on the waste flour left by the adults.
Khapra Beetle, Trogoderma granarium (Coleoptera: Dermestidae)
Adults are harmless. Grubs inflict damages starting from germ portion, surface scratching
and devouring the kernel reducing to frass. Excessive moulting results in loss of market
value due to insanitation caused by the casted skin, frass and hair. Crowding of larvae leads
to unhygienic conditions in warehouses. Damage is confined to peripheral layers of bags in
bulk storage.
Rice Weevil, Sitophilus oryzae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)
This is the most destructive insect-pest of stored cereals in the world and is capable of
damaging the whole grains only. Both, adults and grubs damage the kernel on which they feed
voraciously and render them unfit for human consumption. The grub is more injurious than adult.
In case of heavy infestation, the food commodity becomes a mass of broken matter.
106
Foreign Grain Beetle, Ahasverus advena (Coleoptera: Silvanidae)

The foreign grain beetle is found in both tropical and temperate regions. It is small in
size (2 mm in length). Adults are reddish-brown in colour. This beetle can be distinguished
chiefly by two peg- like projections behind the head on each front corner of the pronotum,
and its club-shaped antennae. They are very similar to the saw-toothed grain beetle, but
lack the sawtoothed projections on the pronotum.
Copra Beetle, Necrobia rufipes (Coleoptera: Cleridae)
Though it is a predatory beetle with a cosmopolitan distribution. The insect feeds on
molds on damp grain/ kernels and other farinaceous materials. In feeding on moldy grain, it
may also damage the germ of the kernels if the relative humidity is over 65%. However, grain
injury by this pest is not severe enough to cause economic damage.
Tenebrionid/ Cadelle Beetle, Tenebroides mauritanicus (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae)
This beetle is cosmopolitan in distribution. It is found particularly in warehouses, silos
and mills. The larvae is a pest of stored food feeding on grain, flour, meal, vegetables, dried
fruits and other stored products. They feed on whole grains as well as processed grain
products. The beetle is a predator of larvae of other grain-infesting insect pests such as the
Indian meal moth and the saw-toothed grain beetle.
Areca Nut Weevil/Coffee Bean Weevil, Araecerus fasciculatus (Coleoptera: Anthribidae)
It infests stored products such as coffee, cocoa, nuts, maize and spices. A. fasciculatus
is a small dome shaped beetle and is mottled dark brown with lighter brown patches.
II. MOTHS
Indian Meal Moth, Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)
This is one of the commonest of dried fruit insects. This species is of worldwide
distribution. In the field, it infests drying and dried raisins, waste fruits, and fruit refuse.
Larvae feed first on the embryo or germ of the kernels and while eating spins a silken thread
on which the droppings of the larvae accumulate. Often these larvae feed close together and
give the impression of living in colonies with infestation first being observed due to the
presence of several silken lumps to which granules of the produce adhere. The youngest
larvae can enter very fine crevices, unexpectedly infesting commodities in containers thought
to be insect proof.
Almond Moth/ Tropical Warehouse Moth, Ephestia cautella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)
This moth is abundant in tropical regions on a wide range of food stuffs and also
encountered in sub-tropical and temperate regions. The larvae attack drying and dried fruits.
Fruits are attacked until they become too dry. Only germs are eaten by the larvae leaving
the kernel undamaged. In heavy infestation, larvae cover all available surfaces with webbing.
In bulk storage, damage is confined to surface but in bagged storage it is widespread.
Rice Moth, Corcyra cephalonica (Lepidoptera : Galleriidae)
The larva feeds on parts of the kernels/ dry fruits by boring inside. Larvae produce dense
webbing and in such cases kernels are bound into lumps. Infestation is characterised by the
presence of silken lumps to which grains adhere.
107
Table 2.
Insect-pests associated with important dry fruits in India
Order
Family
Common Name
Scientific Name
Dried fruit
Citation
Coleoptera
Anobiidae
Tobacco beetle/
Cigarette beetle
Lasioderma serricorne Fabr.
Cashew, Copra, Walnut
Anthribidae
Areca nut weevil/

Coffee bean weevil
Lesser grain borer
Copra beetle/Red ham
beetle
Rice weevil
Khapra beetle
Araecerus fasciculatus Degeer
Copra
Gill et al. (1975),

Singh (1988),
Kumari et al. (1992),
Khare (1993)
Kumari et al. (1992)
Rhyzopertha dominica (Fabr.)

Necrobia rufipes (Fabr.)
Various dry fruits

Cashew, Copra
Bostrychidae
Cleridae
Curculionidae
Dermestidae
Nitidulidae
Silvanidae
109
Tenebrionidae
Lepidoptera
Galleriidae
Gelechiidae
Pyralidae
Ghosh and Durbey (2003)

Singh (1988),
Sitophilus oryzae L.
Cashew
Singh (1988)
Trogoderma granarium Everts
Cashew, Walnut
Singh (1988),
Gill et al. (1975)
Corn sap beetle
Carpophilus dimidiatus (Fabr.)
Copra
Ahasverus advena (Waltl)
Copra
Foreign grain beetle
Oryzaephilus Mercator Fauv.
Cashew, Copra, Pistachio Rad et al. (1997)
Merchant grain beetle
O. surinamensis Linn.
Cashew, Copra,
Gill et al. (1975),
Saw toothed grain beetle
Date Pam, Walnut
Singh (1988),
Kumari et al. (1992),
Ghosh, Khare (1993),
Ghosh and Durbey (2003),
Mohandes (2010)
Gill et al. (1975)
Tenebrionid/ Cadelle beetle Tenebroides mauritanicus Linn. Walnut
Tribolium confusum Sac.
Date Palm
Confused flour beetle
Mohandes (2010)
T. castaneum Herb
Cashew, Copra, Walnut Gill et al. (1975),
Rust Red flour beetle
Singh (1988),
Corcyra cephalonica Stainton
Cashew
Singh (1988),
Rice moth
Khare (1993),
Ghosh and Durbey (2003)
Sitotroga cerealella (Oliver)
Cashew
Singh (1988)
Angoumois grain moth
Ephestia (Cadra) cautella
Almond, Copra,
Khare (1993),
Almond moth/ Tropical
warehouse moth
Walker
Pistachio, Raisin, Walnut Kumari et al. (1992),
Gill et al. (1975)
Plodia interpunctella Hubner
Various dry fruits
Khare (1993),
Indian meal moth
Bhargava et al. (2007)
Thakur (2000)
Pine cone (chilgoza) borer Dioryctria abietella (Denis & Schiff.) Pine nut (chilgoza)
Angoumois Grain Moth/Grain moth, Sitotroga cerealella (Gelechiidae: Lepidoptera)

This pest was first reported in 1736 from the Angoumois province of France. But now it is
distributed throughout the world including India. Only larvae are damaging. The tiny larva
crawls about a little for finding out a soft spot through which it enters the kernal. When it is
inside, closes the entry hole by a silken web and develops therein. The kernels are hollowed
out and filled with their excreta and webbing. It attacks both in fields and stores. In bulk
storage, infestation remains confined to upper 30 cm depth only. Caterpillar enters the kernal
through cracks or abrasions and feeds inside.
Pine cone (Chilgoza) borer, Dioryctria abietella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)
The insect is responsible for causing economic damage to cones and seeds of various
coniferous species including Pinus gerardiana . In nature, the larvae of D. abietella from third
stage onward damage the cones and seeds of conifers while the preceding instar larvae feed
on soft tissues of the cone. The last stage larvae feed voraciously on both the green and old
cones in field, and cones and seed under storage.
Assessment of Losses by Dry Fruit Insect-Pests
Losses caused by insects in dried fruits are difficult to estimate. The loss of weight from
insect feeding is usually trivial. The most serious loss is in appearance and quality, which
lowers or destroys market value. Also, the presence of insects or any other foreign material
in dried fruit is objectionable to consumers.
SUGGESTED READING
Bhargava, M.C., Choudhary, R.K. and Jain, P.C. 2007. Advances in management of stored
grain pests. In : Entomology: Novel Approaches . P.C. Jain and M.C. Bhargava (eds).
pp. 425-451. New India Publishing Agency, New Delhi. 533p.
Ghosh, S.K. and Durbey, S.L. 2003. Integrated Management of Stored Grain Pests .
International Book Distributing Company, Lucknow. 263 p.
Gill, J.S., Srinath, D. and Gupta, T.C. 1975. Preliminary survey of insect infestation in stored
walnut ( Juglans regia, L.). Plant Protection Bulletin India 23 (4) : 30-33.
Khare, B.P. 1993. Stored Grain Pests and their Management . Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi.
314 p.
Kumari, T.N., Mammen, K.V. and Mohandasb, N. 1992. Occurrence and nature of damage
caused by pests of stored copra in Kerala. Indian Coconut Journal, Cochin 23 (7) : 7-12.
Mohandes, EI M.A. 2010. Methyl bromide alternatives for dates disinfestations. Acta
Horticulturae 882 : 555-562.
Rad, S.P., Pajni, H.R. and Neelima Talwar. 1997. Status of Oryzaephilus mercator (Fauvel)
(Coleoptera: Cucujidae) as a pest of common dry fruits. Entomologist 116 (3/4) : 239244.
Singh, V. 1988. Serious pests of stored cashew kernels . Journal of Plantation Crops 16 (2)
: 133-137.
Thakur, M.C. 2000. Forest Entomology (Ecology and Management). Sai Publishers, Dehradun.
609 p.
109
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS AND ASSESSMENT

OF LOSSES DUE TO INSECT- PESTS IN
TEMPERATE FRUIT CROPS
P. K. Mehta and R. S. Chandel
Temperate fruits like apple, almond, peach, plum, apricot, cherry walnut, pear etc. are
grown on large area in wet temperate zone and these fruits have uplifted the economy of
farmers to a great extent. During recent past the productivity of apple and other temperate
fruits has gone down. With the cultivation of fruit crops on large areas the incidence of
insect pests has also increased in recent years. Attack by different insect pests has
contributed significantly in declining the productivity of these fruit crops. Over 1000 species
of insects have been reported to occur on fruits through out the world. About one and a half
dozen of them are considered major pests of temperate fruits and are discussed in the
forgoing text.
1. Sanjose scale, Quadraspidiotus perniciosus (Comstock) :
It is a serious pest of apple and pear. The damage is caused by nymphs and adults
which suck the cell sap from twigs, branches, spurs and fruits. Heavily infested branches
appear as if they are sprinkled with ash and ultimately dry up. On fruits small reddish round
specks appear especially on the calyx end due to sucking of cell sap. The quality of such
fruits gets deteriorated and market value is reduced greatly. The crawlers emerge during
spring, crawls for few hours and after getting a suitable place settles down and remains
there through out the life under a protective covering excreted by itself. In lower hills there
are five generations and in higher hills only three generations are completed in a year.
2. Apple woolly aphid, Eriosoma lanigerum (Housmen) :
This insect is a major pest of apple and pear and is distributed in all apple growing parts
of India. It lives in colonies in the form of white cottony patches on stems, branches and
roots. It sucks the plant sap and results in the formation of galls on stems and roots. The
galls formed on roots are bigger in size and acts as sink in translocation of food material
from either side. The insect migrates from roots to above ground parts and vice versa
throughout the year. The pest is more active during March to September and multiplies and
develops at a reduced rate during October to February. The aphid reproduces
parthenogenetically and the progeny thus obtained consists of females only. There are four
nymphal instars and their duration varies according to season. The affected plants remain
stunted and yield poor quality fruits.
3. Blossom thrips :
This pest is serious during hot and dry weather during spring. Both young ones and adults
cause the damage by rasping the cell sap from flowers, leaf axils and tender leaves. The attacked
flowers gets deformed and do not open as a result of which the fruit set is reduces.
4. Apple root borer, Dorysthenus hugelii Redtenbacher :
It is serious pest of almost all the temperate fruits. The attack is more in orchards
having sandy soils and planted on sunny aspects. Red chest nut coloured big sized beetles
appear with the onset of monsoon and females lay eggs in soil from June end to August
110
which hatch in about 20-30 days. Grubs on hatching feed on organic matter, fine roots and
later on shift to the main roots and continue to feed on roots for about 3 3 years. Grubs
nibble the roots and cut them into two peices just near the collar region. Full grown grub is
10 cm long. After the grub is full fed it makes an earthern celll and pupates inside. Pupal
period lasts for about 6 months and the total life cycle is completed in about 4 years. The
affected trees loose their hold in the soil and get uprooted in strong winds. Above ground
plant parts exhibit sickly appearance and yellowing and withering of leaves on one side of
the tree. Since the life cycle of the pest is long even one or two grubs are sufficient to kill
the full grown plant in about four years.
5. Leopard moth, Zeuzera multistrigata Moore :
It is a serious pest of temperate fruits like cherry, apple, plum peach, walnut etc. Eggs
are laid during July- August on stems and main trunk. Larvae on hatching feed underneath
the bark in early stages and later on tunnels into the branches or tree trunk and feed on sap
wood. The affected trees show yellowing of leaves followed by drying of terminal branches
extending down wards. The larval stage lasts for about 20-22 months and total life cycle is
completed in 25-26 months.
6. Stem borer, Aelosthes holeserica :
It is a serious pest of apple, cherry, apricot, peach, plum, pear, walnut etc. Beetles
which are dark brown and 4-4.5 cm long with yellowish pubescence on the elytra are active
during rainy season and lay white elliptical eggs which are 2.5 mm long on the branches and
main trunk of the tree by making a cut in the bark. The eggs are also laid in the cracks on
the branches. Grubs after hatching from the eggs (in 7-12 days) bore, into the stem/branches
and brown pallets mixed with excreta can be seen adhering on the bark near the entry hole
and lying on the ground. Symptoms produced on leaves are same as that of leopard moth.
The larval period is completed in 27-32 months and pupal period in 40-100 days and the
whole life cycle is completed in about three years.
7. Phytophagous mites :
There are two species of mites which are serious on apple.
a ) European red mite, Panonychus ulmi (Coach) : It is a serious pest of apple in
Himachal Pradesh. Besides, it also attacks pear, plum, peach, cherry, almond, walnut
etc. The mites are red in colour and very small in size and can hardly be seen with
naked eye but can easily be seen with the help of hand lens. Mites suck the cell sap
from under side of the leaves and eat away the chlorophyll. On attacked leaves,
small light specks appear which overlap each other as the attack advances. Later on
heavily infested leaves turn bronzy and cupping (folding from the margins) takes
place. As the mite feeds on chlorophyll the photosynthesis is greatly hampered.
Transpiration rate is also higher as a result the leaves dry up and fall pre maturely.
Fruits remain small in size with fewer sugars. On the under side of the leaves white
exuviae of mites can be seen. The attack is more during drought situation. Low
temperature and high humidity adversely affects the reproduction and development
of the pest. During winter, mite remains in egg stage. Clusters of eggs which are red
in colour can be seen at the base of spurs, cracks and crevices in the stem during
winter. These eggs hatch during spring and larvae, start attacking the leaves and
subsequently develop into protonymphs, deutonymps and the adults. It takes about
one month to complete the life cycle from egg to adult. During active season the
eggs are laid on the under side of the leave near the mid rib or side ribs and 5-6
111
generation are completed in a year before the winter eggs are laid during September
October which over winters.
b) Two spotted mite, Tetranychus urticae Coach : This mite is also called as red
spider mite. The adult mite is deep yellow coloured with two black spots on the
back. Adult mites over winter in fallen dry leaves, grasses in the orchard, cracks and
crevices in the tree trunk. During spring, when temperature rises, these mites crawl
on to the tree and starts sucking the cell sap from the leaves. Life cycle is completed
in 10-30 days and 8-15 generation are completed in a year. This mite spins a web
and move from one leaf to other with the help of these webs. Symptoms on leaves
are similar to that of European red mite.
8. Defoliating and fruit eating beetles :
Large number of species of scarabaeid beetles are found attacking allmost all the
temperate fruits. The most common are Brahmina coriacea (Hope), Anomala dimidiata (Hope),
A. rufiventris Redten backer, A. flavipes Arrow, A. lineatepennis Blanchard etc. These beetles
appear with the pre monsoon showers and remain active through out July- August. Beetles
feed on leaves of temperate fruits and many forest plants. Besides defoliating the plants
these beetles also feed on developing fruits of many temperate fruits. Beetles lay eggs in
soil and the larvae commonly known is white grubs are pests of under ground crops like
potato and also feed on roots of temperate fruits forest plants, weeds, grasses and humus.
After the larva is full fed it makes an earthern shell and pupates in it. Only one generation is
completed in a year.
9. Apple leaf roller, Archips pomivora Meyrick :
The pest is active from May to September. The caterpillars are green in colour with black
head and feed on tender foliage by folding and biding two or more leaves together. Caterpillars
also damage the fruit by scrapping the skin during August September on the tree and also
in storage.
Management : Spray of carbaryl 0.05 per cent during June and malathion 0.05 per cent
before harvesting (3 weeks before harvesting) reduces the incidence of pest.
10. Indian gypsy moth, Lymantria obfuscata Walker :
It is a pest of temperate fruits and deciduous forest trees. The adult moths are dull in
colour and medium in size. Female moth lays eggs in cracks and crevices of bark, logs,
stores and stones on the ground during June-July. The eggs are covered with yellowish
brown scales. Caterpillars are nocturnal in habit and remain hidden during day time under
soil, clods, and stones or in cracks and crevices. Larval period lasts for about 2-3 months
and pupal period in 10-20 days. Only one generation is completed in a year and insect
passes the winter in egg stage.
11. Tent hairy caterpillar, Malacosoma indica Walker :
This insect is an important pest of apple in some areas of Himachal Pradesh. Besides,
it also attacks pear, apricot, walnut and forest trees. The caterpillars feed gregariously on
foliage, leaving behind only the mid rib and other harder veins. Larvae spin silken nests
which appear like tents on the tree and remain hidden in these tents during day time. During
night the caterpillars are active and feed on leaves. Larval period lasts for 40-70 days. Full
grown larva spins on oval, white and compact cocoon for pupation. Pupal period is of 8-22
days. Only one generation is completed in a year.
112
12. Apple fruit moth, Argyresthia conjugella Zeller :

It is a serious pest of apple in dry temperate zone of Himachal Pradesh. Adults emerge
from overwintering pupae during May- June and lay eggs singly on the surface of the fruits
which continues for about a month. Larva after hatching from egg bore into the fruit and feed
on the developing seeds. Larval period is completed in about three weeks. Larva leaves the
fruit before pupation and there is only one generation in a year.
Management : Spray fenitrothirm 0.05 per cent or fenthion 0.04 per cent immediately
after the incidence is noticed. Treatment of local varieties along with commercial varieties is
important to check the multiplication of the pest on these varieties.
13. Flat headed borer, Sphenoptera lafertei Thomson :
It is a serious pest of cherry and peach but attacks other temperate fruit also. The
adults are active during March- April and lay small, spherical, white eggs on the stem bark.
The grubs on emergence bore into the bark and feed below the bark by making irregular
interconnected galleries. Gum globules can be seen oozing out of the entrance hole. The
damage in restricted to the pant parts exposed to the sun light. The larval period is completed
in 2 months during summer and 6 months during winter.
14. Shot hole borer, Scolytoplatypus raja Blandaf :
It is a pest of poorly managed, sick and weak plants. The beetles make pinholes in the
sapwood and lay eggs. Grubs feed on sap wood by making vertical galleries. The flow of
plant sap is affected and plant dries due to wilting.
15. Peach leaf curling aphid, Brachycaudus helichrysi Kaltenbach :
It is a serious pest of peach but also attacks other temperate fruits like plum, apricot,
almond etc. Aphids suck the cell sap from leaf axils and tender leaves which results in
curling of leaves. Curled leaves become brittle due to lack of cell sap. Infected plants bear
small fruits and the market value of such fruit is reduced. Pest is heterocyclic and passes
summer and rainy season on alternate hosts like golden rod, Erageron canadensis, Trifolium
pratense, Cineraria sp. in higher hills and Ageratum conyzoides in the lower hills. Winter,
spring and a part of summer are passed on primary hosts. Eggs hatch during January to
March depending upon the altitude and the nymphs start sucking cell sap from developing
leaves. These nymphs develop into wing less females which reproduce parthenogenetically
and 3-8 generations are completed on the fruit trees. With the warming up of the season,
winged male and females are produced which then migrate to the alternate hosts. Four to
five generations are completed on alternate hosts form June to October. During October
November again the winged forms develop which migrate back to primary hosts and lay eggs
on the base of the buds and spurs. After egg laying, females die and eggs over winter.
16. Peach fruitfly, Bactrocera zonatus (Saunders) :
This pest causes heavy losses to peach. The damage is caused by the maggots only
and the attack is characterized by the dark punctures, oozing of fluid, rotting and dropping
of fruits. The maggots are creamy white, head less and legless. Female fly lays eggs inside
the fruit by injecting its ovipositor into the fruit. The eggs hatch in 2-4 days during May-July
and the maggots feed on the fruit pulp by making galleries. Larvae are full fed in 5-15 days.
Fruits along with larvae fall on the ground and the full fed larvae comes out of fruit and
pupate in soil. Many generations are completed in a year.
113
17. Walnut weevil, Alcidodes porrectirostris Marshal :

It is a serious pest of walnut in the himalayan region. Adult weevils are active from April
onwards and lay eggs inside the developing fruits. Grubs on hatching bore deeper into the
fruits and feed on the kernels. Grub becomes full fed in 13-22 days and pupates inside the
fruits. The adults emerge from fruits by biting a round hole. These weevils start second
generations and the adults from second generation are formed during September October
which over-winters in plant debris, stones, cracks and crevice in ground and bark of trees.
Adult weevils feed on flowers, leaf buds, tender shoots and young fruits.
SUGGESTED READING
Bhalla, O.P. and Gupta, P.R. 1993. Insect pests of temperate fruits. In : Advances in
Horticulture, Fruit Crops, Part 3 (Eds. K.L Chadda and O.P. Pareek) Malhotra Publishing
House, New Delhi: 1557-1589.
Choudhary, M.L.; Awasthi, R.P.; Gupta, V.K.; Roy, S.K.; Gautam, D.R.; Sikka,B.K. and
Samuel, J.C. 2005. Orchard Management in Apple: A Training Manual. National Project
Director, FAO Apple Project, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi: 150 p.
Gupta, D. 2010. Insect pest management in temperate fruits. In: Plant Protection Practices
in Organic Farming . (Eds. Ajay Sharma and R.S. Chandel), International Book
Distributors, Dehradun: 191-213.
Gupta, P.R. 2005. Advances in integrated pest management of pome fruits. In : Advances in
the Integrated Pest Management of Horticultural, Spice and Plantation Crops (Eds. B.S.
Chhillar, V.K. Kalra, S.S. Sharma and Ram Singh ). Centre of Advanced Studies,
Department of Entomology, CCSHAU Hissar: 43-49.
Sharma, J.P. and Thakur J.R. 2004. Insect and mite pests of apple and pear. In: Pest
Management in Horticulture Crops (Eds. LR Verma, D.C. Gautam and A.K. Verma).
Asiatech Publishers, Inc New Delhi: 237-258.
114
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS AND LOSS ASSESSMENT DUE

TO MITE PESTS IN IMPORTANT CROPS
Rachna Gulati
Department of Zoology
Symptoms and assessment of crop losses due to pest damage is necessary for the
development and testing of pest control strategies. In addition, loss assessment is used by
field functionaries/ farmers choosing among alternative control strategies, and economic
damage thresholds are often used when making decisions about implementation of these
strategies. Among the arachnids, Acari are the only group, which feeds on plants.
Crop wise status of major and minor mite pests in India is provided in tabular form for
ready reference (Table 1). Details of the diagnostic symptoms and losses caused by different
families are given under separate headings, although it may be mentioned here that for loss
assessment, correct sampling procedures are needed.
Tetranychidae : Spider mites are one of the major pests of vegetable, ornamental and
fruit crops, causing considerable loss in yield. The loss is however related to the population
level and stage of infestation. These mites are soft bodied, variously coloured, colony forming
and many of these can spin webs to protect themselves from natural enemies and pesticides.
Symptoms of damage
Both nymphs and adults feed on the leaf surface. White specks are formed on the leaves
in later stages of infestation and general chlorosis occurs in patches. Small rounded chlorotic
spots are formed as mites punctures new cells of one spot to another in the form of a circle.
In leaves damaged by mites, degeneration of chloroplast structure, reduction in stomatal
(day time) transpiration and increase in cuticular (night time) transpiration occur thereby
reducing leaf gas exchange and inhibition of photosynthesis. Thus, in case of severe
infestation, plants show yellowing and general drying of leaves, which drop prematurely.
There is extensive webbing on leaf surface and black faecal dots are seen on the leaf surface.
Severe spider mite infestation cause major reductions in plant growth rates, flower formation
and yield. All developing stages of mite suck the cell sap from host plants. Its persistent
infestation deprived of chlorophyll of leaves, hampers the photosynthesis; causes stippling
and formation of scars and blotches on leaves. In case of severe infestation, serious defoliation
occurs.
Damage symptoms peculiar to particular species is provided below to understand their
behaviour.
Tetranychus and Schizotetranychus sp. prefer lower leaf surface.

Eutertanychus and Oligonychus sp. prefer upper leaf surface.
T. urticae - chlorotic patches on leaves which turn brownish and drop off. Blackening of
leaves, decrease in fruit size and yield is observed in pear.
T. ludeni - yellow-bronze leaves in beans. In mulberry, white specks are formed which are
enlarged to form large patches and give rusty, dry look. It is also a vector of Dolichos Enation
Mosaic Virus.
115
E. orientalis - infestation starts along the midrib and later spread to lateral veins; chlorotic
patches also appeared due to feeding.
E.hirsti - trasparent green patches on the leaves under surface are observed initially
which turn yellowish green, brown with rough and dry texture.
O. coffeae- infested leaves turn brown and dry up.
S. andropogoni - white patches on sugarcane leaves are observed which turn brown and
dry.
Panonychus citri- stippling and light coloured spots on foliage which give greyish or
silvery appearance.
P. ulmi- normally found on upper surface of foliage, heavy infestation leads to reduction
in fruit size and yield.
Petrobia latens - leaves dry up from tip downwards, start showing yellowing appearance
which ultimately dry out. Heavily infested plant gives sickly appearance.
Losses due to spider mite infestation
In various crops, 10-15 per cent losses are reported due to spider mites and in some
cases, total loss is reported. In particular, 50-80 per cent in mango 10-15 per cent in rice,
15-20 per cent in tea, 10-25 per cent in sugarcane, 13-31 per cent in brinjal, 25 per cent in
okra due to spider mites are reported (Table 2). Loss assessment due to Eutetranychus
orientalis infestation in forest tree species, Azadirachta indica, Albizia lebbeck, Moringa
oleifera, Ailanthus excelsa and Zizyphus jujuba, showed that it greatly affected the growth
attributes of seedlings (Mohammad et al ., 2006).
Eriophyidae : These are often referred to as adventive species which means alien or
exotic species/ subspecies, introduced into an area outside its native range and includes
many species that cause ecological or economic problems throughout the world (Wheeler
and Hoebeke, 2009). Eriophyoid mites representing 85 species and 30 genera are mentioned
as invasive; genera with the higher number of invasive species include Aceria (29), Eriophyes
(7), Aculops (5), Aculus (4), Acalitus (3), Phyllocoptes (3) and Trisetacus (3). They are
considered efficient vectors of plant diseases caused by 21 pathogens with at least 26
plant diseases are associated with eriophyid mites (Jones 1999).
Symptoms of damage
The mites occur on all parts of a plant and may or may not exhibit the symptoms of
damage. Based on type of injury, they have been classified as under: gall formers (pouch
galls ( Pongamia sp.), bead galls (Ficus sp.), finger galls (Pongamia sp.), bud mites (feed on
developing vegetative buds within unopened leaves), leaf rollers (roll the whole leaves or only
edges of leaves and feed within the rolls), erineum formers (hair like out growths on leaves),
blister mites (blisters on the leaf sheath and feed within) and Vagrants (found on both surfaces
of leaves). Apart from these injuries, some species play a vital role in virus transmission like
Pigeonpea Sterility Mosaic Disease by Aceria cajani, Wheat Streak Mosaic Disease by A.
tulipae , Sugarcane Streak Mosaic Virus by A. sacchari , Fig Mosaic Virus by A. ficus etc.
Damage symptoms peculiar to particular species is provided below to understand their
behaviour.
A. litchi -infestation leads to deformation, curling of leaves, chocolate brown erineum on

leafs lower surface, leaves become dry and fall.
116
A. lycopersici - curling of leaves, appearance of silver gloss on lower surface, roughened

appearance on leaves of brinjal, tomato. There is loss of hair, change of colour and cracks
appear in stems.
A. mangiferae - mango malformation, suck sap from buds which cause necrosis of tender
tissues.
A.guerreronis - injury in floral tracts, injured area become shrivelled, brown and cracks
appeared in fruits.
A. cajani - diseased plant show dwarfing of leaves, bushy habitat, yellowish green leaves,
complete suppression of flowering and fruits.
A. jasmini - cause red blisters on the inner surface of leaves, malformed floral parts.
A. sacchari - formation of blisters of various shapes on inner surface of sugarcane leaf
sheath. The colours of blisters are green then rusty.
E. sheldoni -lemon bud scales are blackened, multiple budding on infested twigs,
abnormal floral parts. In orange, fruits are flattened vertically.
P. oleivora-damaged fruits become silvery, reddish brown or purplish black, affected fruits
have thicker skin and show rust spots.
Acaphylla theae- veins and margins show pinkish discolouration, infested leaves are
pale and leathery.
Calacarus carinatus- infested leaves are initially in copperish brown colour, which turns
purplish bronze.
Cisaberoptus kenyae- white silvery coating on upper surface of leaves under which mites
live.
Losses due to Eriophyid mite infestation
In coconut, colonies of mites are established under the bracts, where they cause necrosis
on the lower surface of the bracts and on the adjacent surface of the fruits, which are often
aborted (Nair 2002). Even when not aborted, the injured fruits commonly show reduced weight,
size, volume of coconut water and albumen. Yield losses can reach over 60% (Moore 2000).
In other crops, deformity to plants or its parts caused complete suppression of flowering and
fruit formation in case of severe infestation.
Tenuipalpidae : These false spider mites resemble tetranychid mites but they cannot
spin webs. These colony-forming mites who generally feed on lower surface of leaves, near
the midrib or veins. Brevipalpus sp. is a vector of many viruses. Brevipalpus transmitted
viruses (BrTVs) are considered putative members of the Rhabdoviridae family because of
their short, rod-like or bacilliform particles, and their ability to accumulate and induce
cytopathological effects either in the cytoplasm or in the nucleus of infected cells.
Symptoms of damage
Bronzing and rusting symptoms are caused on the lower surface of leaves due to feeding
of nymphs and adults. Some species form galls on the leaves and stems of plants while
others feed on bark of trees, leaf sheaths and floral heads. Each species has peculiar damage
symptoms in host plant, which is provided here for better understanding of their behaviour.
Raoiella indica - showed reddish spots on leaves.

117
B. californicus - infested leaves produce brownish patches.

B. phoenicis - infested leaves turned pale yellow and develop brownish patches.
B. obovatus- produced chlorotic patches with concentric rings of reddish resinous material.
D. floridanus - feeding is at basal parts of leaves which cause rust like symptoms.
L. transitans - mites form galls on ber.
Tarsonemidae : This family includes phytophagous, fungivorous and parasitic mites of
scale insects and honeybees. These mites are very small in size varying from 100-300 m in
length. Body is soft, round, oval, white and glossy in colour. These are fast moving mites.
Symptoms of damage
They usually infest the tender portion of plants and suck the sap from buds, leaves,
shoots, flowers and stem sheath. They cause curling, crinkling and brittleness of foliage but
shows little leaf symptoms. The injury caused by this group is often mistaken as a disease
symptoms caused by pathogenic microorganisms. Damage symptoms of the common genera
are given below in different host plants.
S. spinski - increase in percentage of empty grains. They carry spores of rice sheath rot
fungus, which causes brown spots on rice sheath and grains. This disease is known as
Sterile grain Syndrome
S. bancrofti- internodes give scabby corroded appearance, transparent depressions on
young stalks.
P. latus- In chillies, leaving curling is a common symptom associated with this mite. In
citrus, there is bronzing, roughening and crinkling of leaves. In potatoes, oily blackish spots
appear on the under surface of young leaves which turn reddish. H. latus - leaf remain smaller
in size, crumpled leaves are observed which turn brownish.
Losses due to Tarsonemid mite infestation
Polyphagotarsonemus latus has attained a pest attained in crops. It is reported to cause

27-39 per cent losses in chillies. It feeds on lower surface of leaves causing leaves to
become rigid and curled, prevents flower and fruit development. This disease is termed as
Murda disease. In potatoes, due to its infestation the plant wither from the tip and auxillary
buds are killed. This disease is known as Tambera disease.
Acaridae : Mites in the family Acaridae are among the most important acarine pests
attacking agricultural and stored product systems. Within this family, bulb mites of the
genus Rhizoglyphus are economically important pests of plants with bulbs, corms, and
tubers. The two most common species, Rhizoglyphus echinopus and Rhizoglyphus robini,
are probably cosmopolitan and damage a variety of crops including onions, garlic, other
Allium species, Lili, Hyacinth, and many other vegetables (carrots and potatoes etc.), cereals
(rice, rye, wheat, barley, oats etc.), and ornamentals (Gladiolus etc.) in storage, in the
greenhouse and in the field.
Rye, barley and oats plants used as cover crops and windbreaks, a factor that may
contribute to their persistence and outbreaks.
118
Table 1.
Crop wise Status of Major and Minor Mite Pests in India
Crops
Vegetables
All vegetables
Brinjal
Cowpea
Chilli, potato, tomato
Cucurbits
Fruit trees
Apple
Citrus
Guava, Pear
Mango
Litchi
Fig
Pear
Banana
Pomegranate
Grapevines
Loquat
Ber
Date palm
Cereals
Wheat
Paddy
Pulses
Red gram
Black gram, green gram
Oilseeds
Castor, soybean
Coconut
Ornamentals
Rose
Zinia
Marigold
Jasmine
Fibre crops
Jute
cotton
Plantation crops
Tea
Arecanut
Commercial crops
Sugarcane
Fodder crops
Sorghum
Grasses
Spices
Chilli
Coriander
Cardamon
Shade trees
Neem
Saal
Major pest
Minor pest
4
Tetranychus urticae
T. neocaledonicus
T. ludeni
Polyphagotarsonemus latus
6
T. urticae, Panonychus ulmi
Eutetranychus orientalis,
Brevipalpus phoenicis
B. phoenicis
Aceria mangiferae
A. litchii
1
Petrobia latens
T. macfarlanei
T. macfarlanei
18
Schizotetranychus hindustanicus,
Panonychus citri, Brevipalpus californicus,
Phyllocoptruta oleivora
C. kenyae
Oligonychus mangiferus
O. mangiferus, O. beharensis
A. ficus, Eotetranychus hirsti
O. obovatus
O. indicus
O. punicae
O. mangiferus
O. beharensis
Larvacarus transitans, Eriophyes cernuus
Raoiella indica
4
O. indicus, O. oryzae, S. andropogoni,
S. spinki
3
S. cajani
T. urticae, P. latus
1
1
A. cajani
2
T. urticae
A. guerreronis
3
T. urticae
T. neocaledonicus
P. latus
R. indica
4
E.orientalis,B. phoenicis
B. californicus
A. jasmini
1
2
P. latus
T. urticae
5
O. coffeae, B. phoenicis,
P. latus, Acaphylla theae,
Calacarus carinatus
T. macfarlanei
4
T. urticae, B. obovatus
O. indicus, R. indica
3
A. sacchari, S. andropogoni, S. bancrofti
1
1
O. indicus
1
O. indicus
S. andropogoni
3
1
P. latus
P. latens
B. phoenicis, Dolichotetranychus floridanus
1
1
E. orientalis
O. beharensis
119
Table 2.
Yield losses due to Different Phytophagous Mites
Mite species
Crop
Losses (%)
Spider mites
T.urticae
Vegetables
Okra
Brinjal
Cotton
Pointed gourd
Brinjal
Tea
Sugarcane
Sorghum
Paddy
Chillies
Ber
Litchi
Mango
Pigeon pea
10-15
23-25
13-31
20-30
36
12.18 to 32.21
5-11
20-30
56
20-25
27-39
20-40
30
50-80
15-30
T. macfarlanei
O. coffeae
S. andropogoni
O. indicus
O. oryzae
P. latus
L. transitans
A. litchii
A. mangiferae
A. cajani
Symptoms of damage
Bulb mites attack the roots and other subterranean structures of plants, but are also
occasionally collected on the leaves and stems of infested Liliaceae. Seeds of a variety of
crops are also affected. R. costarricensis attacks the seeds of O. sativa , and mites are
often found protected inside the seed coat (Bonilla et al ., 1990). Similar behavior has been
observed on R. robini attacking barley, oats and rye. Infestations of corms and bulbs are
characterized by penetration through the basal plate or outer skin layer and subsequent
establishment in the inner layers. Condition of bulbs and corms may affect rates of colonization
and establishment. Damaged and cull onions are often colonized by bulb mites, a factor
that may contribute to mite outbreaks during the following growing season.
Loss caused due to acarid mite infestation

Little data are available on loss assessment due to Rhizoglyphus spp. infestations.
Rawlins (1955) stated that yield from onions infested with R. robini was reduced sharply in
infested areas, but provided no quantitative estimates of losses. Wang (1983) observed
losses that ranged between 54.2% to 90% on Gladiolus infected with R. robini in China.
Nakao (1991) observed 30% damage due to R. robini on Welsh onion ( Allium fistulosum )
seedlings grown in the greenhouse.
SUGGESTED READING
Kubo, K. S.; Novelli, V. M.; Bastianel, M. Locali-Fabris E. C.; Antonioli-Luizon R. Machado
M. A. and Freitas-Astua J. 2011. Detection of Brevipalpus-transmitted viruses in their
mite vectors by RTPCR. Exp Appl Acarol 54 : 3339.
Moore, D. 2000. Non-chemical control of Aceria guerreronis on coconuts. Biocontrol News
Infor. 21 : 8387.
120
PREDICTING INSECT POPULATIONS USING MODELS

Ram Niwas and M. L. Khichar
Department of Agricultural Meteorology
Models are representations of complex phenomena and are used to understand and
predict changes in those phenomena. Population dynamics of various organisms, specially
insects, are of particular concern as population changes affect human health, production of
ecosystem commodities and the quality of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem. Hence,
modeling improves our ability to understand and predict changes in insect population
abundances and has a rich history.
The act of developing relationship between pest development and its environment using
mathematical equations is called pest modeling.
Model : It is an equation or set of equations which represent the behavior of a system.
In simple terms, a model is a mathematical representation of a system and it acts as mimicry.
Model is a mean of understanding the concept. It is simplification of reality.
Pest model : A mathematical or at least computer based representation of pest
population, its development and mortality processes. A model may also include a pests
relationship with the crop or livestock host and processes involved in its control.
Pest-weather model : A simplified representation of the relationships between weather/
physical environment on one hand and growth, development and multiplication on the other
hand.
Importance of Modelling
1. Models represent explicit hypothesis of how key component and process affect pest
population development, crop damage or the effectiveness of control.
2. Prediction of pest attack and extrapolation from one situation to another.
3. Operational tools for rear time guidance to pest control decision making.
4. Model can assist the process of improving pest management.
Types of insect pest models
The pest-weather models can be grouped into three main categories.
1. Statistical model :
In this type of model, one or several environmental variables are related to insect/pest
growth and development. There are two types of variables. One is independent and other is
dependent. The independent variables are meteorological, derived agrometeorological and
other environmental variables, etc. The dependent variable is the insect/pest parameter such
as its growth, development and multiplication. The statistical model does not lead to an
explanations of the cause and effect relationships. It is very practical approach. It is very
simple and easy to use. It requires minimum input data. Statistical model can be divided
into three types :
121
1.1 Simple linear regression model

The linear regression model with one independent variable as input parameter is
termed as simple linear regression model. This model is expressed by the equation.
y = a + bx
Where,
y = Dependent variable e.g. pest population
a = Intercept or constant
b = Slope or regression coefficient
x = Independent variable e.g. environmental variable.
1.2 Curvilinear regression/polynomial model
This model represent a curvilinear relationship between independent and dependent
variable. It is expressed by the equation:
y = a + bx + cx 2 +
where,
a = Constant, b & c = Slope for x and x2
x 2 = Second power of independent variable x.
1.3 Multiple regression model
The regression model with more than one independent variables as input parameters
is defined as multiple regression model. The model is represented by the equation:
y = a+b 1 x, + b2 x 2 + b 3x 3+ . +bn xn
n
y =
a+ bi xi
i= 1
where,
a = Constant, bi =
Partial regression coefficient for ith variable
xi = Independent variables for i =1 to n

Regression models provide estimates of the net effect for dependent variable y
based on the continuous operation of each in a set of independent variables (x 1, x2
., xn). The relative influence of each x on y is measured by the respective partial
regression coefficients (b 1, b 2., bn). Each of these bs is a constant which
represents an average rate and functions continuously in the operation of the model.
Thus, it is also called as holistic model. The limitation of the holistic model is their
inability to account for the critical dependence of some events on the prior occurrence
of the other events in a required sequence.
2. Mathematical models
2.1 Simple population models
2.1.1
Exponential model: (Vanderplank, 1838)
The population growth rate is directly proportional to the growth already present. The
differential equation for this model is given by :
dy
---- = ry
dt
122
where,
y = Size of population, r = Instaneous growth rate
By integration we get
y t = y o exp rt
where,
y o =Population size at t = 0
y t+1 = y t + ry t
Where,
y t+1 and y t = Population att andt + 1, respectively
r = (N+I) (M+E)
Where,
N = Natality, M = Mortality
I = Immigration, E = Emmigration
Where,
Time specific natality, mortality and dispersal data have not been collected r can be
estimated as
r = log e R 0/ T
Where,
R0 = Replacement rate,
2.1.2
T = Generation time
Logestic model: (Verhulust, 1988)
No population could sustain such an increase for long. Without other constraints,
competition for resources would become increasing severe and the net rate of increase dy/
dt would be reduced due to mortality, reduced fecundity or both. In this model the rate of
growth is proportional to the product of present size (ry) and future amount of growth (k-y).
This may be mathematically expressed as :
dy/dt = ry(k-y)/k
Where,
k = Maximum population size that environment can sustain
By integration we get
k
yt =
.............
(1+be -rt)
where,
b = Constant
2.1.3
Gompertz model (Gompertz, 1825)
The rate of population growth may be mathematically expressed as:

dy/dt = (ry) ln(k/y)
The population growth at a time t by integration we get:
yt
= k exp (-b exp -rt )
The Gompertz curve is also S shaped like the logistic curve but it is not symmetrical
about its point of inflection.
123
2.1.4
Monomolecular model (Mitscherlich, 1909 and Richards, 1969)
The rate of population growth at a time is directly proportional to the growth yet to be
achieved. Mathematically may be expressed as :
dy/dt = r(k-y)
The population size of time t by integration is given by :
yt
k(1-bert )
This function steadily rises from a point k(1-b) at t = 0 to the limiting value of k.
2.1.5 Geometric model:
For insect species with non overlapping generations, the population, growth is given by
the equation:
y t = R ot y o
Where,
y t and yo = Insect population at time t and initial population, respectively.
Ro = Replacement rate i.e. per capita increase from generation to next.
2.1.6 Complex models:
General models such as logistic growth models are limited by several assumptions and
do not predict the dynamics of real system accurately. r and k are assumed to be constant.
Infact, they are affected by natality, mortality, dispersal and changing environmental
conditions, including depletion by dense population. Modeling real populations of interest,
then, requires development of more complex models with additional parameters that correct
these short comings, some of which are described as follows.
Nonlinear density-dependent processes and delayed feed back can be addressed by
allowing r to vary as follows:
r = r max sy t T
Where,
rmax = Maximum per capita increase
s
= Strength of interaction between individuals in the population
= Time delay in feed back
The sign and magnitude of s also can vary, depending upon the relative dominance of
competitive interactions:
s = s p - s my t
Where,
s p = Maximum benefit of competitive interactions.
s m = Competitive effect with assumption that s is a linear function of population density
at time t (Berryman, 1981).
The extinction threshold E can be incorporated by adding a term forcing population
change to be negative below this threshold:
y t + 1 = y t r y t (k-y t )/k (yt -E)/E
124
2.1.6.1 Lotka-Volterra model for competing species:

The Lotka-Volterra equation for the effect of species competing for the same resources:
Y 1(t + 1) = y 1t + r 1y 1t (k 1-y 1t-y 2t)/k 1
Where,
y 1t and y 2 t = Population of two (1 & 2) species at timet.
= Competition coefficient that measures the per capita inhibitive effect of species 2
and species 1.
2.1.6.2 Lotka-Volterra model of predator-prey Interaction
This model describes the interaction between prey species with a density y and its
predator, with density P by the differential equation:
dy/dt = ry[(k-y)/k]-c 1 yP
dp/d t= -dp+c 2 yP
Where,
r= Preys instaneous rate of growth.
d= Death rate of predators in the absence of prey
c 1= Coefficient of attack
c 2= Conversion factor of prey into more predator individuals
2.1.6.3 Nicholson-Bailey model of parasitoid- Host interaction
The equation for this model is expressed as:
y t+1 = Y t exp
aPt
P t+1 = cy t [1-exp -aPt]

Where,
y = Host population,
P = Parasitoid progeny
C = Mean numbers of parasitoid progeny produced per host attacked.

a = Rate of host increase per generation.
2.2 Mathematical models for age structured population dynamics
2.2.1
Deterministic models with age structure
2.2.1.1 Von Foster Model: Von Forster proposed the following model for age structured
population:
dn (t,a) + dn (t, a) = - (t,a) n (t,a)
dt
da
where,
n (t,a) = Population density at time t and age a
t&a = Chronological time and age
(t,a) = Death rate of time t and age a
125
2.2.1.2 Leslie model: This model is a derived discrete analogue model of the Von Foster
model. The solution of the Von Foster model in discrete terms with a/t=1 is given by:
n (t+t) = ni (t)
si (t)
Where,
ni(t) = Population density in ith age class at time t = n(t, ai).
si(t) = Survival ratio of ith age class at time
t = 1- i (t, ai),
i = 0 to m
2.2.2
Deterministic models for physiological parameters
2.2.2.1 Generalized Von Foster model

The Von Foster Model for population dynamics in terms of physiological age/
developmental index x is given by:
dn + d [v( (t), x) n (t, x)] =
- (t,x) n(t,x)
dt
dx
Where,
v ( (t),x) = Temperature () dependent development rate of individual
organisms at time t and physiological age x
2.2.2.2 Generalized Laslie Model
The Leslie model is generalized to take into account the physiological age x.
n (t+ t, x i+1) = n(t, x i*) s* i(t)
where,
x i* = Interpolated between x i and x i+1
s i*= Survival ratio of ith physiological age x at time t
2.2.3
Stochastic development models
2.2.3.1 Macroscopic model

The dynamics of the population with deaths assuming stochastic process of change in
development is given by:
dn (t,x)
d
+
[v(t,x) n(t,x)] 1 d 2 [k(t,x) n(t,x)]
dt
dx
2 dx2
=
- (t,x) n(t,x)
where,
(t,x)=Death rate of individual of age x at time t
k(t,x)=
Variance of individual development of age x at time t
2.2.3.2 Microscopic model

We assume the development of an insect can be viewed as an accumulation of small
development increments over time. For every small time interval, the developmental level
126
changes by x. The development process of the ith individual organism for the time interval
(t+t) is given by:
xi(t+t)=
xi(t)+v[(t,xi(t)] t + ni
Where,
ni= Random variables drawn from a normal distribution of probability with mean 0 and
variance k(t, xi) t.
3. Simulation model
A simulation model may be defined as a simplified imitative representation of the physical,
chemical, biological and physiological mechanisms underlying insect/ pest growth process.
If the basic processes of insect life cycle growth and development are properly understood
and modeled using mathematical tools, the entire response of the insect to its environmental
conditions can be simulated. Various time interval can be introduced in a simulation model,
then it is termed as dynamic simulation model. In case of insect life cycle, daily or hourly
intervals are most practical with assumption that rate computed for an interval does not
change appreciably during that period. The common structure of the dynamic simulation
model is of the form:
M pj+1
Mj =
M pj + f p (M j, X j, A j )* t
M o for j= 0
Where,
M pj =
A functional relationship for estimating biological parameter.
Mj =
A vector consisting of M pj
Xj
A vector characterizing the current state of environmental
conditions e.g. X ij is air temperature, X 2j is humidity, X 3j is rainfall amount, etc.

Aj =
A functional and numerical parameter of the model
Present time
j+1 =
Next increment in time
Increment in time
Biological process
Simulation model can be most useful if model accounts for most relevant phenomena
and contains no false assumptions. Simulation provides insight into bio-weather relationships,
explains why some factors are more important for insect/pest growth and development than
others, suggests factors likely to have statistical significance and provides the basis for
new experiments on the processes which are apparently important but not yet sufficiently
understood.
3.1 Brown plant hopper (BPH)
This model assumes that all eggs move to the next age class. A proportion of eggs can
die. The proportional daily mortality of eggs is assumed to be constant (e).
E 2, t+1
E 1,t (1-e)
127
E 3, t+1
E 2,t (1-e)
In similar way the eggs are laid by adult between the age of 3 to 4 and 7to8 days old to
produce the number of 0 to 1 day old eggs may be expressed as :
8
E 1,t=
[A i (1-a)f]
i=4
Where,
Ai =
Number of adults of age i = 4 to 8 days
Daily mortality of adults
Fecundity or number of eggs produced per adult per day.
Conclusion
Statistical models are practical, simple as they require minimum input data for predicting
pest population. These models are more accurate for a particular pest species, host, region
and time. But they are limited to the environment for which they are developed. These models
do not explain the cause and effect of relationship between pest and environment.
Mathematical/ analytical models can serve a useful purpose in indicating key areas or
relevant questions for the field and laboratory ecologist or simply in sharpening discussion
of continuous issues.
The simulation model provides the understanding of the pest environment interactions
as they are based on the mechanisms involved in the interactions. But the simulation models
are more complex, requires enormous input data and sophisticated computers.
SUGGESTED READING
Berryman, A. A. 1981. Population Systems : a General Introduction . Plenum ,Press, New
York.
Gompertz, B. 1825. On the nature of the function expressive of the law of human mortality.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 36 : 513-585.
Mitscherlich, E.A. 1909. Das Gesetz des minimum und das Gesetz des abnehmenden
bodenortrags Landwirtsch Jahrb. 38 : 537-552.
Norton, G.A. and Mumford, J.D. 1993. Decision Tools for Pest Management . CAB International
Wallingford Oxon 0x10 8DE UK.
Richards, F.J. 1969. The quantitative analysis of growth. In : Steward F.C. (ed.) Plant
Physiology Vol. V. Academic Press, London, New York. 3-76.
Schowalter T. D. 2006. Insect Ecology : an Ecosystem Approach . Academic Press in an
imprint of Elsevier.
Vanderplank, J.E. 1963. Plant Disease: Epidemics and Control. Academic Press, New York.
Verhulst, P.F. 1838. Notice sur la loi que la population suit dans son accroissement. Corr.
Math. Phys. 10 : 113-121.
128
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS AND LOSSES CAUSED BY

MAJOR ENEMIES TO HONEY BEES
S. K. Sharma
Like other living beings, the honey bee is also subjected to attack at all stages of its
development by various enemies acting either directly as predators, or indirectly, by disturbing
the life of the colony in various ways. The most important of these enemies are those that
destroy the combs, the stores, the hive itself and some predators that take foraging worker
bees as they leave the hive, or those that behave as true parasites by raising their offspring
in the bodies of bees.
In this article diagnostic symptoms and losses caused by major enemies to honey bees
are discussed. The enemies which are associated with honey bees are mites, ants, wasps,
wax moth, termite, beetles and dragonfly.
1. MITES
In tropical Asia, the success or failure of beekeeping operations with Apis mellifera
largely depends on mite control. All known major species of parasitic mites of honey bee
currently exist in Asia, most being native to the continent. Some species of mites are able
to survive, or even thrive, on more than a single species of host bee. Several species of
mites have been reported as causing devastation to both A. mellifera and A. cerana
beekeeping throughout Asia, though not all mite species found within the hives or in
association with the bees are true parasites. Table 1 contains a list of parasitic mites
reportedly found in association with honey bees in Asia.
1.1 Varroa Mite ( Varroasis )
The original host of this mite is Apis cerana throughout Asia. Since the initiation of
beekeeping development projects with A. mellifera on the continent, it has been reported as
causing damage in both temperate and tropical Asia. The overall effect of varroa infestation
is to weaken the honey bee colonies and thus decrease honey production. Occasionally in
A. melllfera , and more frequently in A. cerana, heavy infestation may cause absconding.
Today this parasite is found throughout the world, except for Australia and New Zealand
South Island.
Cause
Varroa destructor Anderson and Trueman is quite large, as compared with other mite
species, and can be seen with the unaided eye. The mite is reddish brown in colour and
shiny and the body is dorsoventrally flattened covered with short hairs (setae). Adult females
Table 1. Bee mites and their hosts
Mite
Mode of living
Host
Habitat
Varroa destructor
Euvarroa sinhai
Tropilelaps clereae
Acarapis woodi
Parasitic
Parasitic
Parasitic
Parasitic
A.cerana & A. mellifera

A. florea
A. dorsata & A. mellifera
A.mellifera & A.cerana
Brood cell and

Brood cell and
Brood cell and
Trachea of the
Source : FAO technical bulletin
129
adult
adult
adult
adult
bee
bee
bee
bee
of V. destructor are found inside brood cells or walking rapidly on comb surfaces. Individual
mites are often seen clinging tightly to the body of adult bees, mostly on the abdomen,
where the segments overlap, between the thorax and the abdomen and at the ventral entry.
Adult males, and the immature stages of both sexes (egg, protonymph and deutonymph),
are not commonly seen outside the brood cells.
Losses : Varroa mite causes injuries to honey bees by direct feeding. The adult female
mite pierces the bees soft intersegmental membrane with their pointed chelicera and sucks
the bees haemolymph (blood). The damage to adult bee is only done when the infestation
is severe. Varroasis is a brood disease. If more than one parasitic female mite infests the
brood cell the brood deformations occur including shortened abdomen or deformed wings. If
only one mite infests a cell symptoms may not be visible, although the bees life-span is
considerably shortened. Colonies destroyed by the varroa mite are often left with only a
handful of bees and the queen, the other bees having died during foraging or having drifted to
neighbouring colonies, where the mite population can increase before killing these colonies
also. In this way mites may cause colonies to die, as in some kind of domino effect, over
wide areas. The presence of adult bees with deformed wings, crawling on comb surfaces or
near the hive entrance, usually indicates a late stage of heavy mite infestation. Several
methods may be used to detect mites. The most reliable, perhaps the most time-consuming,
is direct sampling by the random opening of brood cells, particularly drone cells. The older
the larvae/pupae the easier this procedure becomes.
1.2 Tropilaelaps Mite
Modern beekeeping with Apis mellifera in tropical and sub-tropical Asia frequently
encounters problems caused by infestation with Tropilaelaps spp . The mite is a native parasite
of the giant honey bee A. dorsata , widely distributed throughout tropical Asia.
Cause
Tropilaelaps mites are much smaller than varroa mites, although the trained unaided eye
can still see them. When the mites are present in a honey bee colony in large numbers,
they can be observed walking rapidly on the surface of the comb. They are rarely found on
adult bees. In all its immature stages, the mite lives within the brood cells of the bees,
feeding on the broods haemolymph. Fertilized adult females enter the cells before they are
capped to lay their eggs. The stages of development of the mite are as follows: egg, sixlegged larva, protonymph, deutonymph, adult.
Symptoms
The damage caused to colonies by Tropilaelaps infestation is similar to that brought
about by Varroa and the injuries inflicted on individual bees and bee brood are essentially
the same. The abdomen of bees surviving mite attacks is reduced in size, and they have a
shorter life-span than healthy bees. In heavily infested colonies, bees with deformed wings
can be observed crawling in the vicinity of the hive entrance and on the comb surfaces.
1.3 Tracheal Mite ( Acarapidosis )
This mite, Acarapis woodi Rennie, infests the tracheal system of adult bees, queens,
workers and drones, which are all equally susceptible to its attacks.
Cause
A. woodi is a very small mite (0.1 m) species that lives and breeds within the thoracic
tracheae of adult bees. The mite penetrates through the stigma (spiracles) into the first
130
trachea pair of the thorax of 10-day old honey bees. There it lays eggs at intervals of a few
days. After the deutonymph stage, male offspring emerge after around 12 days and females
after 13 to 16 days.
Symptoms
The most reliable diagnostic method is laboratory dissection. Samples of 20 or more
bees found crawling near the hive and unable to fly are killed, their heads and legs removed
and their thoraxes dissected for microscopic examination. If present, the mites are usually
found at the end of the first pair of trachea in the thorax
2. Ants
Ants are among the most common predators of honey bees in tropical and subtropical
Asia. They are highly social insects and will attack the hives en masse , taking virtually
everything in them: dead or alive adult bees, the brood and honey. Ants may harm bees in
various ways. Some species, in particular those in the sub-families of Dorylinae and
Ecitoninae, which include the army ants, are capable of destroying a whole apiary within a
few hours. They behave as fearsome predators of adults, larvae and eggs. Other ants disturb
the colony in their eagerness to steal honey ( Formica rufa, Formica sanguine, Formica
fusca, Lasius niger) or pollen (Crematogaster jherinil) (Santis and De Regalia, 1978). Other
species such as Camponotus herculeanu ssp. pennsylvanicus attack the wood of the hives
or their supports (Burril, 1926).
Generally, most of the ant species are not very damaging to bees even though they
occasionally roam around inside the hives, looking for food. Also, they may establish their
nests between the cover board and the roof, taking advantage of the warm, humid environment,
which provides them with optimal nesting conditions. Queen mating nuclei containing very
small populations of bees, are most vulnerable to attack by ants.
In addition to this destruction, they can also be a nuisance to beekeepers and may
sometimes cause pain from their bites. Apiaries of Apis mellifera under ant attack become
aggressive and difficult to manage; weak colonies will sometimes abscond, which is also
the defence of A. cerana against frequent ant invasions. Many ant genera and species are
reported to cause problems to both traditional beekeeping with A. cerana and to modern
beekeeping with A. mellifera.
Losses : In India, not much work has been done on the ants in relation to honey bees.
Singh and Naim (1994) reported Teteraponera rufonigra (Jerdon) as pest of honey bees Apis
cerana during monsoon season. They found that attack resulted in complete destruction of
8.0 to 9.0 per cent of colonies and partially destruction of 8.0 to18.0 per cent of the colonies
3. Termites
Termites are wood infesting creatures and since most bee hives are made of wood,
termites have to be listed as a hive pest. Termites are only after the wood-not bees or honey.
Hives placed on the ground or bee equipment left lying around on the ground or stacked
directly on the ground may be subjected to termite infestation. If termites destroy the bottom
board the bees may not have a bottom entrance and the colony could be more difficult to
move.
When bottom board is damaged by ants, there are chances of attack of wax moth in the
hive. Colonies would be unable to maintain the hive temperature; ultimately it will effect the
growth and development of colony.
131
4. Wasps and Hornets

The hornets have curious attitude of swooping down on anything dark on the flower (De
Jong, 1979). Vespa crab can undertake co-ordinated attacks with such a great number of
individuals that whole apiaries may be depopulated. The bees cannot, on their own, offer
great resistance to the hornets. Wasps of the Vespula and Dolichovespula type are not
important predators of bees.
Colonies of both A. cerana and A. mellifera are frequently attacked. Hornet invasion of
A. cerana colonies generally causes the bees to abscond, and similar behaviour is reported
of weak colonies of A. mellifera . In addition to hornets of the genus Vespa , other wasp
species have occasionally been reported to cause damage to apiaries. Among these are
several species of the genus Vespula , which are distributed throughout temperate Asia.
Table 2 lists wasps and hornets that have been reported as major predators of the two honey
bee species in Asia. Predation by Vespa spp. on commercial apiaries is generally a seasonal
problem.
Table 2.
Wasps and hornets that attack bees in Asia
Scientific Name
Recorded Distribution
Vespa orientalis
India, Pakistan
Vespa mandrina
India, Burma, Thailand, Lao, Vietnam, Democratic Kampuchia,

China, Republic of Korea, Japan
Vespa tropica
Tropical Asia
Vespa velutina
Tropical Asia
Vespa cincta
Tropical Asia
Vespa affinis
Tropical and Sub tropical Asia
Vespa crabro
Japan and perhaps whole temperate Asia
Vespa mongolica
Japan and perhaps whole temperate Asia
Vespula lewisii
Japan
Vespula vulgaris
Republic of Korea
Source : FAO technical bulleitin
Extent of losses : On an average 20-25 per cent of bee colonies are lost due to persistent
wasp attack. The wasp, attacks usually coincide with dearth periods when bee forage
sources, as nectar and pollen are scarce. Of all the Vespa spp. preying Apis mellifera and
A. cerana , V. cincta , V. velutina and V. basalis are the most serious and caused heavy
losses by feeding on adult bees , their brood and honey reserves. Apis mellifera is relatively
more susceptible to wasps attack than A. cerana and predation often coincides with flowerless
dry season. When three or more hornets have been attracted to the hive en masses; a
colony of 30000 bees can be killed in three hours by 20-30 hornets. Predatory wasps pose
a serious threat to beekeeping as 20-30 per cent of bee colonies desert their hives annually
due to predatory wasps attacks.
5. The greater wax moth ( Galleria mellonella L . )
The greater wax moth is the most important pest of honey bees world wide because of
its serious losses it can inflict (Smith, 1960; Singh, 1962). They destroy a large number of
combs every year, attack the wax foundation and can reduce stored combs and weak colonies
to a pile of debris. Wax moths only cause considerable damage in apiaries if the colonies
they attack are incapable of repelling them. The susceptibility of the colony to attack may
132
be due to several causes: malnutrition, disease, loss of the queen or large scale mortality of
the worker bees due to poisoning by pesticides. Wax moths may also be implicated in the
spread contagious diseases, especially foulbrood, by consuming contaminated combs.
The newly-hatched Galleria larvae feed on honey and pollen, and then burrow into pollen
storage cells or the outer edge of cell walls, later extending their tunnels to the midrib of the
comb as they grow. At this stage the developing larvae are quite safe from the worker bees.
As they advance into the combs, they leave behind them a mass of webs and debris; the
complete destruction of unattended combs usually ensues within 10-15 days. In addition to
stored pollen and comb wax, larvae of the greater wax moth will also attack bee brood when
short of food.
Symptom : When weak colonies are infested, the symptom of galleriasis is frequently
observed: the emerging adult worker and drone bees are unable to leave their cells because
their bodies have been tied up by silken threads spun by the Galleria larvae.
Extent of losses : Adult of wax moths causes no damage because their mouth parts are
atrophied. They do not feed during their adult life. Only larvae feed and destroy combs.
However, adult wax moths and larvae can transfer pathogen of serious bee diseases.
6. The lesser wax moth ( Achroia grisella L.)
Symptom : Infestation by the lesser wax moth usually occurs in weak honey bee colonies.
The larvae prefer to feed on dark comb, with pollen or brood cells. They are often found on
the bottom board among the wax debris. As larvae prefer to form small canals between the
bottoms of the brood cells the brood is lifted. The bees continue constructing cells heading
upward leading to the typical scratched comb surface.
7. Other Lepidoptera
Other moth species are frequently recorded in association with bees and bee products.
The Indian meal moth Plodia interpunctella is reported to feed on bee-collected pollen. Moths
found dead on the bottom boards of beehives include deathshead or hawk moths (Acherontia
atropos), which invade the hives to feed on honey. Beekeepers generally consider them to
be minor pests.
8. Beetles
There are several different beetles living in honey bee colonies. Most are harmless and
feed on pollen or honey.
Small hive beetle (SHB) (Aethina tumida Murrey) :
Symptoms
The beetles and their larvae can infest bee brood and honeycombs in and outside the
apiary. There they form eating canals and destroy the cell caps, and the honey starts to
ferment. The beetles larvae and faeces also change the colour and taste of the honey and
the combs appear ucilaginous.
A minor infestation is difficult to recognize because the beetles immediately hide in the
dark. The most secure diagnosis is achieved after chemical treatment when the dead beetles
can be gathered from the bottom inlay.
Extent of losses : Beetle larvae do the most damage in the colony, burrowing through
brood combs and consuming the brood and stores. The level of harm to the colony depends
133
on the number of beetle larvae present. Once present in large numbers, the survival of the
colony is at great risk. Queens stop egg laying and colonies can quickly collapse. In heavy
infestations, tens of thousands of SHB larvae may be present within the colony. In such
cases there can often be up to 30 larvae per cell. Such large numbers can generate enough
heat inside the hive to cause comb to collapse and subsequently for the colony to
abscond.SHB larvae affect combs of stored honey and pollen and will also infest brood
combs. During the feeding action by larvae an associated repellent sticky substance is laid
down on the combs and this can result in bees abandoning the hive. By defecation of adult
beetles and larvae in honey combs causes the to ferment and drip out of cells
9. Dragonfly
Some of the larger species of dragonflies, also commonly referred to as mosquito hawks
or darning needles, feed on honey bees. Nearly all dragonflies are predaceous and capture
their prey while flying. They arrange their six legs into a basket shape to capture flying
insects. They may eat the prey while flying or upon landing. Since the immature stage, a
naiad, lives in the water, adult dragonflies rarely wander far from rivers or lakes.
Needham and Heywood (1929) labeled dragonflies as harmless, if not useful insects, in
all but their relationship with honey bees. They stated that dragonflies may make queen
rearing impractical and unprofitable. The ground in apiaries where dragonflies are feeding
may be covered with the discarded legs and wings of both honey bee sexes.
In Europe, as in North America, dragonflies are known as bee pests. Betts (1939) did
not find dragonflies as serious enemies of honey bees in England. He believed that dragonflies
should be protected except where queens are being reared.
SUGGESTED READING
Abrol, D.P. 1997. Honey Bee Diseases and their Management . Kalyani Publishers, Ludhiana:
607 p
Mishra, R.C. 1997. Perspectives in Indian Apiculture. Agro-botanica, Bikaner : 412p.
Morse, R.A. 1978. Honey Bee Pests, Predators and Diseases. Cornell University Press,
Ithaca: 430 p
Singh, S.1962. Beekeeping in India. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.
214p.
134

LOSSES DUE TO ARTHROPOD PESTS IN CROPS
M. K. Dhillon
Division of Entomology, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI),
New Delhi 110 012, India
Crop plants are damaged by more than 10,000 species of the arthropods, however, less
than 10% of the total identified pest species are generally considered as major pests. The
outbreak of an insect pest quiet often becomes a major concern of the farmer. Every crop is
infected by enormous number of insect pests from sowing to harvest, a few of them are of
major economic importance and are taken into account for the assessment of crop losses
caused by them, while rest of the minor insect pests too cumulatively contributes to
considerable share of yield loss in a given crop in space and time. Some times it is also
difficult to identify some of the insect pests whose damage symptoms are very conspicuous
and goes unnoticeable, but causes considerable yield losses. The damage or loss caused
by the insects cannot be quantified without considering the pest in relation to its environment
or to its interaction with other organisms. Besides an accurate identification of the causative
pest, other prerequisites for integrated crop protection measures include detailed information
on the extent of damage and the resulting yield losses. This information is available for a
number of important crops, but is inadequate or completely lacking for many basic food
crops. The amount of detail needed for a crop damage assessment must be decided within
the restrictions of budget and logistics. The minimum amount of data needed to understand
the situation should be the baseline. However, in some cases more data need to be collected.
Information about spatial and temporal patterns of crop damage, the type of crop(s) involved,
area of standing crop damaged or the number of plants damaged relative to the size of the
field, and/or an estimate of the monetary losses as a consequence of crop damage may well
provide valuable information.
Diagnostic symptoms of damage by various insects in different crops
The damage pattern and symptoms by insect pests depends on their mode of feeding,
and varies across group of insects. Plant tissue feeding or sap sucking are the major mode
of insect feeding. The mode of feeding and the diagnostic symptoms of damage by some
major insect pests are elaborated hereunder:
Sap sucking insects :
The sap sucking pest damaged plants, in general, produce pale specks on the points it
makes puncture and secrets the sweet substance or honeydew which leads to sooty mould
development on leaf surface, obstruct sunlight and retard photosynthesis, resulting in poor
and stunted plant growth, or the damaged plant dries up. Hereunder are some of the peculiar
symptoms of damage by sucking pests in different crops :
Damage by thrips and mites result in leaf discoloration, while damage by aphids and
psyllids result in leaf deformity.
The brown plant hopper affected rice crop dries up and gives hopper burn in circular
patch, while white backed plant hopper damage result in hopper burn in irregular patches.
The head bug damage in sorghum produces shrinked, black colored and ill filled (chaffy)
chaffy panicles, as a result of sucking of juice in the milky stage of the sorghum grains.
135
The shoot bug damage in sorghum result in unhealthy, stunted and yellow plants, and
the leaves wither from top downwards, panicle formation is inhibited, the plants die if the
attack is severe, and honeydew secreted by the bug causes growth of sooty mould on
leaves.
The white fly, Bemisia tabaci damaged tomato plants produce curly leaves as a result of
transmission of leaf curl virus showing vein clearing symptoms. Similarly, the white fly
also transmits yellow vein mosaic virus (YMV) in soybean, mungbean and blackgram,
where in case of severe infestation of YMV, very few pods are formed, which are reduced
in size with smaller and shriveled grains.
Leaf hopper damage in okra produces leaf cupping symptoms.
Foliage feeders and stem/fruit boring insects
The foliage feeding insects generally nibble the leaves either on margin or on surface, or
leaf skeletonized, or defoliation, which are the major symptoms of damage by beetles,
caterpillars, crickets, and grasshoppers. The damage by borers on the foliage/ in the plant
stem result in leaf scarification, stunted growth, bunchy top, shot holes, deadheart, silver
shoot, etc. The fruit damage is detected by observing holes in the fruits, however, in some
cases the damage in the fruits is not easy detected since the holes they make on surface
soon heal up removing all traces of existence inside, and can only be detected after fruits
are cut open. Hereunder are some of the peculiar symptoms of damage by borer and foliage
feeding insects in different crops:
Yellow stem borer, Scirpophaga incertulas damage in rice is detected by observing
deadhearts in the seedling stage and white ears at the reproductive stage of the crop.
Leaf folder or leaf roller, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis damage in rice is detected by observing
the scrapping of the green tissues of the leaves which makes them white and dry, and
during severe infestation the whole field exhibits scorched appearance.
The gall midge, Orseolia oryzae maggots feed at the base of the growing shoot causing
formation of a tube like gall that is similar to onion leaf or silver-shoot in rice.
The nymphs and adults of grasshopper, Hieroglyphus banian cause enormous losses to
the crop by chewing and cutting various plant portion viz ., leaves, flowers and grains.
The maggots of shoot fly cut growing tip of the central of the cereal crops resulting in dry
up of the central leaf called deadheart. The deadhearts caused by shoot fly can be
easily pulled out and gives foul smell.
The young larva of spotted stem borer, Chilo partellus crawls and feeds on tender folded
leaves causing typical shot hole symptom, which then cuts the central growing top
resulting in central shoot withering and leading to deadheart formation. The stem borer
deadheart can not be pulled out easily. With the elongation of the plant stem bore holes
are also visible on the stem near the nodes.
The Helicoverpa armigera damage can initially be seen as leaf scarification by larvae,
however, more clear damage symptoms of this pest are visible as circular feeding holes
on flowers, flower buds, and fruits/pods/bolls in tomato, chickpea, pigeonpea, cotton,
etc, where the larger larvae bore into reproductive parts and consume the developing
seeds.
136
Pest populations and crop losses

The loss in a crop is directly related to the population of the insect pests. Therefore,
extensive studies are needed to understand the distribution pattern of insect population, to
predict the likely damage to be caused, to initiate control measures, and to relate changes
in the population to certain climatic or edaphic factors, and are integral part of the assessment
of crop losses due to insect pests. The pest population density can be measured with
following three estimates:
Absolute estimate : The total number of insects per unit area is the absolute estimation,
for e.g., per ha, 2 m row length, 1 m 2 quadrant, etc. The numbers of insects per unit of the
habitat indicate the density of population, e.g., per plant, or shoot, or leaf, or flower, or fruit,
etc. The estimates of absolute population and population density are used for preparing life
tables, study the population dynamics, and to calculate population buildup under field
conditions. The absolute insect pest populations are generally estimated through quadrant
method (immobile and relatively large insects, and for tissue borers by collecting and splitting
open the damaged plant parts), line-transect method (quantitative comparisons between
different species and between different occupiers of habitats like locusts and grasshoppers),
or capture, marking, release and recapture technique (flying insects).
Relative estimate : In relative estimate of the insect population, the samples usually
represent an unknown constant proportion of the population. Such estimates are useful in
making comparisons in space and time. These are useful for studying the activity patterns
of a species or for determining the constitution of a polymorphic population. The methods
employed for relative estimates include the catch per unit time or effort (use of various types
of sweep nets depending on insect species and vegetation) and the use of various types of
traps (interception traps like flight, aquatic, pitfall, light, etc., to catch the insects randomly;
and attraction traps like use of some natural stimulus, bait traps, chemical attractants,
pheromones, etc. for attraction of insects).
Population indices : Population indices dont count insects, but are measures of insect
products or effects. Under field conditions, it is not possible to estimate the absolute
population in most of the cases. Therefore, it becomes necessary to establish a relationship
between absolute estimates and population indices or the relative estimates so that the
latter two types of estimates could be converted in to absolute terms by using certain
correction factors.
In some cases, a species that is difficult to sample creates products directly that are
easily sampled by absolute methods. The insect product most often sampled is frass or
excrement of lepidopterous defoliators. The rate at which frass is produced can be estimated
from the amount falling into a box or funnel placed under the trees. The size and shape of
the frass pellets is rather constant for a given species and instar, and allows identifying the
species and age composition of defoliators. The amount of damage caused by insects to
crop plants is a function of the pest density, the characteristic feeding or oviposition behavior
of the species and the biological characteristics of the plants. Different methods have to be
adopted for measuring damage by direct (pests attacking the produce directly such as
bollworms on cotton and fruit borers in fruit and vegetable crops) or indirect pests (measured
by estimating the extent of defoliation like lepidopteran caterpillars, leaf beetles,
grasshoppers, etc.). The damage by direct pests is sampled on the basis of absolute or
relative numbers of damaged unit, e.g., number of damaged bolls/plant, damaged pods/
meter row length, damaged apples/tree, etc.
137
Yield loss assessment

The loss suffered by a crop is a function of the pest population, behavior of the pest and
the crop plants. Damage to the plant occurs because of the effect of injury by the insect,
and a simple damage to the plants may or may not lead to crop loss. The reduction in
quantity/quality of the produce is the crop loss. The loss in quality may affect the appearance
of the crop produce, its nutritive value or it may result in the produce being rendered unfit for
use. Insect pests damage crop plants either by feeding or during the process of oviposition.
Some of the insect pest species are host specific which feed on the plants of a single
species termed as monophagous. Others attack plant species belonging to the same family
and are known as oligophagous. The insect species capable of infecting plant species
belonging to several diverse families are called polyphagous. Some of the pests are strictly
specific as regards their site of feeding and oviposition, for e.g., leaf hoppers, leaf miners,
fruit borers or root borers, etc. They cause damage to only one part of plant. There are
others, like the locust and some species of beetles that can attack several parts of the
same plant simultaneously. The losses due to insect pests can be categorized in many
ways, depending upon the significance of pests and their management.
Direct losses : The direct losses relate to decrease in productivity (quantitative) or
intrinsic value/acceptability of the produce (qualitative). Direct quantitative losses include
killing of flowers, buds, twigs of whole plant because of infestation by a pest having either
chewing or piercing-sucking mouth parts, e.g. locust and grasshoppers, bollworms, fruit
borers, etc. The direct qualitative losses include light infection of fruits by the scales,
puncturing of normal fruits immediately before harvest owing to feeding or ovipositional activity.
Damage by the pests to the fruit trees from the blooming to harvesting period result in
quantitative loss in the earlier phase and qualitative ones in the later phase.
Indirect losses : The indirect losses are primarily of economic interest such as decreased
purchasing power of the agriculturists and those depending upon agriculture owing to reduced
production. This would lead to decrease in related activities, reduced productivity of agrobased industries, expenses incurred for importation of agricultural produce, and also forced
acceptance of less desirable substitute products.
Actual losses : The actual crop is determined in terms of total value of the quantitative
(direct) and qualitative (indirect) losses, and the cost of control measures alongwith the
amount spent on research for developing knowledge and tools for the control of insect pests
by the agriculturists.
Methods of estimation of losses
The amount of damage caused by insect pests of crop plants is a function of the feeding,
oviposition, and biological characteristics of the pest population, biological characteristics
of the host plants, and their interactions with both biotic and abiotic environmental factors.
Sometimes it is difficult to establish correlations between the levels of pest population and
plant damage, however, the estimation of damage is critical for pest management. The
evaluation of damage is helpful in recognizing relative economic importance of different pests,
defining the economic status of a pest species, estimating the effectiveness of control
measures, evaluating crop varieties for their resistance to pests, and helpful in deciding the
allocations for research and extension in plant protection. Hereunder are some techniques
being used for the assessment of crop losses caused by insect pests.
Mechanical protection : The crop is grown under enclosures of wire gauge or cotton
cloth. The enclosures keep the pest away from the crop. The yield under such enclosures is
138
compared with that obtained from the infected crop under similar conditions. The technique
has been used with various modifications for estimating the losses caused by leafhopper
and whitefly in cotton. In the case of non-flying insects, sometimes, the barriers are substituted
for the cages. Change in microenvironment and its effect on plant growth and development is
the major limitation of use of this technique, which also can not be adopted on a large scale
as is time consuming, uneconomic and impracticable on field scale.
Chemical protection : The crop is protected from pest damage through the application
of pesticides. The yield of treated crop is compared with the normal infested and unprotected
crop. This technique has been widely used, and it can be adopted on a large scale under
farmers field conditions. As a thumb rule while measuring crop losses through chemical
protection, it needs to be ensured that the treated and untreated fields/plots have similar
soil type, manuring, variety and cultural practices, however, physiological effect of chemical
application can also increase or decrease in crop yield and can not be completely ruled out.
Pest incidence in different fields : The yield is determined per unit area in different
fields carrying different degrees of pest infestation. The correlation between the crop yield
and degree of infestation is worked out to estimate the loss in yield. Although, this technique
can be used for estimating crop loss due to different pests and diseases over a large area,
the crop yield also get influenced due to heterogeneity in soil, fertility gradient and variability
in local climate, which needs to be addressed while estimating the yield losses due to
insect pests.
Pest incidence on individual plants : In this case, individual plants from the same
field are examined for the pest incidence and their yield is determined individually. The loss
in yield is estimated by comparing the average yield of healthy plants with that of plants
showing different degrees of infestation. The same data also can be used for working out a
correlation equation between yield and infestation on the basis of individual plants. The
advantage of this technique over the preceding one is that soil heterogeneity factor is
considerably reduced in the same field. However, different plants showing varying degrees of
infestation in itself is a proof that plants differ from one another in some unknown factors
due to which they carry different degrees of infestation. This factor may be genetic or
physiological or it may be mere soil heterogeneity in the same field. Moreover, this method
is very time consuming and involves lot of labor.
Damage by individual insect : Preliminary information on the damage caused by
individual insect is obtained from studies on biology of pest species. The details regarding
the amount of damage caused by different stages or ages of the pest, and the exact nature
and amount of loss caused are then worked out. This technique is quite easy in the case of
leaf feeding insects, however, it is very difficult to use over large areas since it is very time
consuming.
Simulated damage : This technique involves simulation of pest injury by removing or
injuring leaves or other parts of the plant. The simulated damage may, however, not always
be equivalent to the damage caused by an insect. Insects may persist over a period of time
or inject long acting toxins rather than producing their injury instantly. Feeding on leaf margins
may not be equivalent to tissue removal from the centre of the leaves.
Thus, any of the above methods can be suitably modified and used for estimating loss in
yield of a given crop. The degree of pest infestation and the damage caused by it may differ
from field to field in the same season, and from season to season in the same field. It is,
therefore, imperative to work out the average values. In case the crop losses have to be
139
worked out on the regional/state basis, the numbers of places from where estimations have
to be made are more important than the degree of precision of the technique employed.
Estimation of economic value of the crop losses due to insect pests
To estimate the economic value of losses due to damage by insect pests, the actual
losses need to be measured. The crop loss is the difference between actual yield (Ya) (with
damage by target insect pest) and the potential yield (Yp) (without the insect pests damage),
which then after multiplying by the area of the region and the price of crop harvest, an
economic evaluation of crop loss due to target insect pest(s) can be made. Furthermore, it
is convenient to express this difference as a proportion of the potential yield (Yp), to obtain
a proportional crop loss (r).
Thus, r = (Yp Ya)/Yp
The ratio r can be obtained from different sources such as farmers estimates, experts
estimates, or crop loss estimates from the field. If this ratio r is known, loss can then be
derived from actual yield with following formula:
Yp Ya = Ya (r/1r)
Similarly, crop loss for an area or for a country can be defined as the difference between
potential production (Pp) and actual production (Pa), where in by knowing the r, we can
estimate the absolute crop losses caused by target insect pest(s) using the below given
formula :
Pp Pa = Pa (r/1r)
The crop losses can also be derived through ratio or absolute value obtained indirectly from
occurrence, incidence, or damage indicators. Occurrence is usually expressed as a binary variable
(present/absent), incidence is the extent of occurrence or the number of insects per plant or per
unit area, and the damage is assessed by counting the number of infested plants. In general, the
number of insects (n) can be estimated through a damage score or rating (x), which thus can be
expressed as n = f(x). This function can thus be estimated through regression, and several other
functional forms available. Alternatively, yield Y can be directly related to a set of insect damage
indicators (d), with a set of other relevant variables (z) such as management practices, variety,
etc., and thus can be expressed as : Y = f (d, z). Once this relationship and its precision are
established, it provides more economical way of estimating yield loss than direct estimation in
trials. It is possible to develop cost functions to calculate the cost of obtaining a crop loss
estimate within a given error margin. Finally, to obtain an economic evaluation, losses need to be
multiplied by prices.
SUGGESTED READING
De Groote, H. 1996. Optimal survey design for rural data collection in developing countries.
Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 35 : 163175.
Kranz, J. 2005. Interactions in pest complexes and their effects on yield. Journal of Plant
Diseases and Protection 112 (4) : 366385.
Le Clerg, E.L. 1971. Field experiments for assessment of crop losses. In : Crop Loss
Assessment Methods (Chiarappa, L., ed.). Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham
Royal, UK, pp. 1-11.
Pradhan, S. 1964. Assessment of losses caused by insect pests of crops and estimation of
insect population. In: Entomology in India . Entomological Society of India, New Delhi,
India, pp. 17-58.
Teng, P.S. (ed.). 1991. Crop Loss Assessment and Pest Management . APS Press, The
American Phytopathological Society, St Paul, Minnesota.
140

DUE TO INSECT-PESTS IN FORAGE CROPS
S. P. Singh
CCS Haryana Agricultural University,
Hisar-125004, India
The forage crops include all plant species consumed by animals, thereby cover large
number of cereals and legume plants. In India, the cultivated major fodder crops include
plant species such as sorghum, Egyptian clover (berseem ), cowpea and clusterbean (guar ).
Insect pests are one of the major constraints in increasing and stabilizing the production
and productivity of forage crops. A number of insect pests inflict moderate to sever quantitative
and qualitative losses to these crops. Pest wise information about diagnosis symptoms of
pests damage and assessment of losses due to major pests infesting forage crops are
described below.
I.
SORGHUM
a ) Shoot Fly, Atherigona soccata (Rondani) (Muscidae: Diptera)
The first-instar larva cuts the growing point, which results in wilting and drying of the
central leaf, known as a dead heart. The dead heart produces a bad smell and it can be
pulled out easily. Normally, the damage occurs at one week to four weeks after seedling
emergence. The damaged plants produce side tillers, which may also be attacked further. In
northern India, there are two distinct peaks of shoot fly activity i.e., during March to mid
May and mid July to September.
b) Spotted Stem Borer: Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) (Pyralidae: Lepidoptera)
It is a major pest of sorghum and attacks all stages of crop growth after 15 days of
germination. The stem borer also damages maize and bajra crops. The first indication that a
plant is infested is the appearance of small elongated windows in young whorl leaves where
the larvae have eaten the upper surface of the leaf but have left the lower surface intact as a
transparent window.
The stem borer injury to sorghum includes leaf feeding, tunneling within the stalk,
disruption of the flow of nutrients to the ear, and subsequent development of dead hearts.
The first symptoms of stem borer damage are the appearance of shot-hole injury to whorl
leaves. Dead hearts result from larval feeding injury to the growth point of sorghum plants;
this damage is most important during the first 2-3 weeks after seedling emergence.
Assessment of losses in sorghum due to shoot fly and stem borer
Techniques of estimation losses caused by shoot fly and stem borer infesting sorghum,
to grow the crop as free from insect infestation as possible and then to compare its yield
with that of the check in which the insect activity has been normal. The following methods
have been suggested on the basis of various techniques developed so far for estimating the
losses caused by insect pests.
i)
Mechanical protection of the crop from pest damage :
Efforts have been made to grow the crop under iron mesh cage to keep out the pest, and then
to compare the crop yield with that obtained from infested crop grown under infested conditions.
141
ii) Chemical protection of crop from the pests under investigation :

An effort is made to protect the experimental crop by the recommended pest control
schedule, and the yield is compared with that under normal insect infestation. This technique
is widely used for estimating the losses caused by insect pests.
Singh (1986) estimated the avoidable losses in six forage sorghum varieties due to shoot
fly and stem borer under protected and un-protected field conditions by protecting crop with
0.05% endosulfan at 12, 22 and 32 days after crop sowing. The following formulae were used
for calculating per cent avoidable loss and increase in yield.
Per cent avoidable loss = y y/ y x 100
Per cent yield increase = y - y / y x 100
Where, y and y are the increase are the mean yields in the sprayed and unsprayed
plots, respectively.
iii) Comparison of the yield in field having different degrees of pest infestation :
Under this method, different degrees of pest infestation is to be maintained by applying
the insecticide at various intervals and then to work out yield losses.
The yield loss in sorghum due to C. partellus was estimated by Taneja and Nwanze
(1989). During 1982 and 1983 yield losses in unprotected plots were 60 and 62 per cent,
respectively.
Thobbi and Mohan (1971) reported 70.7 per cent reduction in dead heart formation and
about 34.0 per cent avoidable losses in fodder production due to protection of the crop from
the shoot fly damage. Pasalu and Narayana (1975) revealed about 25.6 per cent avoidable
losses against this pest. Further Thobbi et al. (1975) found that the dead hearts can be
reduced upto 78.0 per cent and about 50.0 per cent fodder yield can be increased with the
protection of the crop from the shoot fly attack. Jotwani et a1. (1979) calculated 52.4 per
cent increase in fodder yield of the shoot fly protected as compared to the unprotected crop.
Sukbani and Jotwani (1981) obtained 20.2 per cent increase in fodder yield over the control
when the crop was sprayed with 0.05 per cent diazinon. In forage sorghum, Sandhu and
Dhaliwal (1982) obtained 68.8 per cent increased fodder yield and 67.5 per cent reduction in
dead hearts due to shoot fly in the protected crop over the control. Bhanot et al.(1983)
recorded an overall of 14.8 percent increase in fodder yield when several varieties of forage
sorghum were protected against this pest and also estimated 45.7 per cent avoidable losses
in fodder yield when forage sorghum crop was protected against shoot fly. Overall, the
avoidable loss due to this pest in forage sorghum is about 30 per cent. Economic threshold
for shoot fly is 20 per cent dead hearts or 5 per cent plants with eggs, 10 days after germination
(Singh, 2006).
The information on the losses caused by the stem borer in forage sorghum is rather
scanty. Jotwani (1971) estimated about 50 per cent losses in fodder yie1d due to stem
borer. Kundu et al. (1977) reported 38.0 per cent avoidable losses due to stem borer in
sorghum. In studies on forage sorghum, Gupta et al. (1980) achieved. 95.6 per cent reduction
in dead hearts by this pest in treated over the control plots. Kundu and Kishore (1980)
worked out 48.4 per cent avoidable loss due to this pest in fodder yield. Singh et al . (1982)
calculated 32.2 per cent avoidable loss in fodder yield against this pest and about 80.0 per
cent reduction in dead heart formation in forage sorghum. Bhanot et al. ( 1983) estimated
about 60.0 per cent avoidable losses in fodder yield due to this pest.
142
II. COWPEA AND CLUSTERBEAN

a ) Aphid, Aphis craccivora Koch
Colonies of aphids are found on the stems, leaves, and pods of cowpea and guar plants.
Nymphs and adults suck sap from underside of the leaves, top shoots and stems, as a
result of which the plants become discoloured and weak. Infestation in the early stage causes
stunting of the plants as well as reducing the vigour.
The economic threshold is 10 per cent infested plants. The avoidable losses due to this
pest in cowpea and clusterbean seed crops are about 20 per cent.
b) Leafhopper, Empoasca kerri Pruthi
Both nymphs and adults suck sap from the leaves, which in severe cases of attack turn
yellow to reddish brown. The attacked leaves later curl up, become distorted and fall down.
The nymphs and adults prefer shady areas and generally remain on the lower surface of the
leaves.
The pest appears on these crops during the rainy season and attacks through out the
growth stage. Besides cowpea and guar, it also attacks berseem, lucerne, soybean, potato
and tomato crops. Economic threshold for leafhopper is 2 nymphs per leaf based on 30
leaves or 20 per cent fully developed leaves start curling. The avoidable losses due to this
pest in cowpea and clusterbean seed crops are about 30 per cent.
c) Pod Borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)
The young larva feeds on the foliage for some time and later damages the flower buds,
pods and feed on the developing grains and can reduce the seed yield up to 60 per cent. A
single larva may destroy 30-40 pods before it reaches maturity. Characteristically, while
feeding, the head will be thrust inside leaving rest of the body out side.
The pest appears on these crops during the rainy season and attacks through out the
growth stages of the crop. Besides cowpea and guar , it also attacks berseem, lucerne and
tomato crops. Economic threshold for pod borer is 0.5 larva per plant (10 larvae per 20
plants) or 5 per cent pods infested. The avoidable losses due to this pest in cowpea and
clusterbean seed crops are about 25 per cent.
SUGGESTED READING
Sharma, H.C. and Nwanze, K.F. 1996. Insect Pests of Sorghum and their Management.
ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. p.29.
Singh, S.P. l997. Effect of genotypic resistance on avoidable losses and economic thresholds
for the spotted stem borer, pages : 46-51. In : Plant Resistance to Insects in Sorghum.
(Eds: Sharma, H.C., Singh,F., Nwanze, K.F.). ICRISAT, Patancheru, A.P.,India.
Singh, S.P. 2000. Insect pest management in forage crops. Proc. Advanced Training Course
on Recent Advances in Integrated Pest Management. 1-21, December, 2000, Department
of Entomology, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, India.pp. 283-292.
Singh, S.P. 2010. Recent Advances in Biointensive IPM in Forage Crops. Proc. Advanced
Training Course on Recent Advances in Biointensive Integrated Pest Management ,
Department of Entomology, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, India. pp.123130.
143
Singh, S.P. and Chhillar, B.S. 2010. Insect-pest management in legume forage crops. pages:
241-262. In : Forage Legume (Eds. Jai Vir Singh, B. S. Chhillar, B.D. Yadav and U.N.
Joshi), Scientific Publishers (India), Jodhpur, Rajasthan
Singh, S.P., Chhillar, B.S. and Het Ram 2004. Relative efficacy of bio-insecticides against
pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in berseem seed crop and estimation of yield
losses. Forage Research , 30 (1) : 31-33.
Singh, S.P., Luthra, Y.P. and Lodhi, G.P. l995. Assessment of quantitative and qualitative
losses caused by stem borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) in forage sorghum. Forage Res.
21 (3) : 109-113.
Singh, S.P. and Verma, A.N. l989. Extent of losses caused by stem borer, Chilo
partellus (Swinhoe) in forage sorghum. Pesticides 23 (2) : 19-22.
Singh, S.P., Verma, A.N. and Lodhi, G.P.1992. Larval and pupal population of Chilo partellus
(Swin.) in different sorghum plant parts at crop harvest and moth emergence during offseason. Crop Res . 5 (2) : 359-362.
144

LOSSES DUE TO INSECT-PESTS IN POTATO
R. S. Chandel and Mandeep Pathania
Potato is vulnerable to attack of pests, both in fields as well as in stores. A great
diversity of pests attacking potato exists in India due to varying agro climatic conditions.
These pests damage the potato crop by feeding on leaves, thus reducing photosynthetic
efficiency, by attacking the stems thus weakening the plant, inhibiting growth of potato
tubers and by feeding on tubers. Accordingly, potato pests are grouped into soil pests,
foliage feeders, sap feeders and storage pests, besides nematode pests are dealt separately.
In potato seed production, the pests of greatest concern are usually the aphid vectors of
potato viruses especially Myzus persicae (Sulzer). In ware production, the key pests may
be insects which attack tubers, such as potato tuber moth, white grubs and cut worms. In
some situations, foliage feeders such as noctuids and coccinellids are important.
1. SOIL PESTS
Cut worms : In India, Agrotis ipsilon (Hufn.), A. segetum (Schiff.) , A. flammatra Schiff.,
A interacta Wlk., and A. spinifera Hb. occur on potato. Greasy cut worm, Agrotis ipsilon
(Hufn.) is generally a cool climate pest active from October onwards in plains and migrates
to hills in summer.Surface cut worm, Agrotis spinifera Hb. occurs in Punjab, Bihar, Andhra
Pradesh and Karnataka. Moths appear in August and peak population is found in September
which gradually declines during October November. Larvae feed on leaves, stem and
tubers destructive at seedling stage during dry period when potato vines are quite tender.
Tuber damage does not occur in rainy season crop, but larvae inflict considerable tuber
damage in spring crop. In plains, it is active from October onwards and with onset of summer,
it migrates to hilly regions. The larvae feed voraciously and cut potato plants in early stage
of the crop growth. The plants are eaten off just above, or at short distance below the soil
surface. In certain cases entire row of plants is cut. Tuber damage is manifested in the form
of deep holes. The peak activity is found during May-June in Shimla hills.
White grubs : White grubs are most destructive and troublesome soil insects, threatening
potato production in hilly states. These white grubs are present in the soil at a depth of 5
20 cms during the crop season. Large holes are made in the tubers which ultimately may be
entirely transversed by wide deep mines (Chandel et al., 1995). In India, 20 species of white
grubs have been reported causing damage to potato. Out of these, Brahmina coriacea (Hope)
and Holotrichia longipennis (Blanchard) are most destructive, threatening potato production
in hilly states. Holotrichia serrata (Fab) damages potato in Karnataka (Misra and Chandel
2003). All the requirements of the life cycle of these beetles except mating and feeding are
met with underground.
Termites and Ants : Several species of termites such as Microtermes obesi (Holmgren) ,
Odontotermes obesus (Rambur) and Eromotermes spp. have been reported damaging potato
crop especially in sandy soil (Chandel and Chandla, 2003). The worker caste of termites is
responsible for the damage by making deep holes. The termites feed on roots and tubers.
145
The tubers become hollow and are often filled with soil and the leaves of such plants start
yellowing and wilting and ultimately dry up.
Red ants, Dorylus orientalis Westwood and D. labiatus Shuckard have termite like habit
of attacking plants underground. The pest damages potato stem and tubers by making holes.
Severely damaged plants show wilting during bright sunshine and finally plants dry up.
2. STORAGE PESTS
Potato tuber moth : Potato tuber moth, Phthorimaea operculella (Zeller) is a serious
pest of stored potato tubers. The damaging stage of the pest is larva which feeds on potato
foliage and attack tubers in the field before and shortly after harvesting. The infestation of
PTM starts in the field on leaves and acts as an initial source of infestation. Moths emerge
from over-wintering larvae in early spring and lay eggs, chiefly on underside of leaves or
upon exposed tubers.
3. LEAF EATING INSTECTS
Hadda beetles : Epilachna beetles and its grubs form important pests of potato. The
two types of Epilachna beetles commonly found all over India are the 12 spotted ( Epilachna
ocellata Redt.) and 28 spotted beetles (Epilachna vigntioctopunctata Fab . ). The former is
generally found in higher hills and later is, however, restricted to mid hills or plains. The
damage is caused by the adult and grubs feeding on leaf tissues and skeletonizing the
leaves.The grubs eat out somewhat regular areas, leaving slender parallel strips and uneaten
portion between them, giving the plants a characteristic lace like skeletonized appearance.
When abundant, the plants are shredded and dried out so that they die within a month after
the attack begins, often before crop is matured.
Leaf eating caterpillars : Several leaf eating caterpillars such as semiloopers, Plusia
orichalcea (F.); tobacco caterpillar, Spodoptera litura (Hb); gram pod borer, Helicoverpa
armigera (Hb.) and Bihar hairy caterpillar, Spilosoma obliqua Walk. have been reported to
feed on potato foliage from different regions of the country. Of these, H. armigera and P.
orichalcea are quite important. In plains, caterpillars of H. armigera migrate from chickpea
to potato in the spring season and feeds on potato foliage. In hilly areas, the moths appear
in large numbers by the end of March on ornamental plants and females lay eggs singly on
the lower side of leaves. On hatching, the caterpillars feed on potato foliage. P. orichalcea
caterpillars cause severe damage to foliage in the summer potato crop in Meghalaya and to
spring crop in Punjab and Himachal Pradesh.
4. SAP SUCKING INSECTS
Green peach aphid, Myzus persicae Sulzer : The primary concern with aphids is
usually their role as virus vectors in potato seed production. The cosmopolitan aphid, M.
persicae is sufficiently important a pest on potatoes and other crops. In M. persicae only
eggs are produced by sexual reproduction whereas all subsequent reproduction is viviparous
and parthenogenetic. The aphids have both winged and wingless forms. Wingless forms are
predominant on potato during most part of the year. M. persicae over winter as eggs on a
very restricted number of primary host species, often woody plants (Peach etc.). In spring,
wingless aphids called stem mothers hatch from eggs, feed on the primary host, mature and
produce young ones asexually. Offsprings of stem mothers are generally all wingless.
146
Leaf hoppers : In India, Amrasca biguttula biguttala and Empoasca devastans are the
major species of leaf hoppers. Prolonged feeding by the adults and nymphs causes a condition
known as hopper burn i.e. brown triangular lesion at the tip of the leaf. Toxins in the saliva
of potato leaf hopper induce swelling of cells, which eventually crushes the phloem. There
is depletion of plant reserves due to increase in plant respiration subjected to hopper attack.
Nymphal period is12 days. New adults begin laying eggs when they are 6 days old and
usually complete 2-4 generations in a year.
Thrips : Thrips are the vectors of tospo viruses causing stem necrosis in potato. Seven
species of thrips are associated with potato. Of these, Thrips palmi Kamy, Scirtothrips
dorsalis Hood, Coleothrips collaris Priesner and Haplothrips sp. are important. Both adults
and nymphs scrap the epidermal tissues of leaves usually near the tips and rasp the oozing
sap. The surface of leaves becomes whitened and somewhat flecked in appearance. The
tips of leaves wither, curl up, and die. The under side of leaves will be found spotted with
small brownish-black specks. They rasp and puncture the surface of the leaf with their
stabber like mouth parts and swallow the sap, together with bits of leaf tissue. Under
conditions of high incidence, the whole field gives a dry blight appearance where most of
the infected plants have dry leaves hanging on blighted stems.
Whitefly, Bemisia tabaci : The infestation of B. tabaci is more on early potato crop
planted in September. Maximum population on potato occurs in November and there is
sharp decline in white fly population by December. Both nymphs and adults suck the sap
usually from ventral surface of leaves and devitalize the plants. In addition, they also act as
a vector mainly for potato Gemini viruses in plains. The affected plants remain stunted and
their leaves show distinct upward or downward curling. Leaves of affected plants show dark
green veins as compared to normal translucent veins of healthy plants.
5. NON-INSECT PESTS
Mite, Polyphagotarsonemus latus : This broad mite cause tambera in potato. Both
nymphs and adult damage the crop. The margins of fresh leaves are cupped and distorted
with corky area between main veins on underside of the leaves. There are characteristic
copper colour deposits on the lower side of leaves. Under severe mite attack, the infested
leaves dry up resulting into ultimate death of plant that can be easily spotted in the infested
fields due to their bronze colour. The peak activity of the mites occurs in August when sun
shine is bright.The entire life cycle is completed in 5-8 days.
SUGGESTED READING
Anonymous,2000. Package of Practices For Rabi Crops . Directorate of Extension
Education,HPKV Palampur (Himachal Pradesh).
Butani, D.K. and Jotwani, M.G. 1984. Insects in Vegetables . Colour Publications, Mumbai:
356 p.
Chandel, R.S.; Chandla, V.K. and Sharma, A. 2003. Population dynamics of potato white
grubs in Shimla hills. J. Indian Potato Assoc . 30 (1-2) : 151-152.
Chandel, R.S.; Chandla, V.K. and Singh, B.P. 2005. Potato tuber moth Phthorimaea
operculella (Zeller). Tech. Bull. No.65 , CPRI, Shimla.
147
Chandel, R.S., Gupta, P.R. and Chander, R. 1995. Behaviour and biology of the defoliating
beetle, Brahmina coriacea (Hope) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) inH i m a c h a l P r a d e s h .
J. Soil. Biol. Ecol., 15 (1) : 82 - 89.
Chandel, R.S. and Kashyap N.P. 1997. About white grubs and their management. Farmer
and Parliament, XXXVII (10) : 2930.
Chandel, R.S., Kumar, Rajnish and Kashyap, N.P. 2001. Bioecology of potato tuber moth,
Phthorimaea operculella Zeller in mid hills of Himachal Pradesh. J. ent. Res. , 25 (3) :
195 2003.
Chandel, R.S., Kumar, Rajnish and Mehta, P.K. 2001. Monitoring of incidence of potato
tuber moth, Phthorimaea operculella Zeller in mid hills of Himachal Pradesh. Pest mgnt.
Econ. Zoo. 9 : 71-77.
Chandla, V.K.; Khurana, S.M. Paul and Garg, I.D. 2004. Aphids, their importance, monitoring
and management in seed potato crop. Tech. Bull. No . 61 , CPRI, Shimla: 12 p.
Khurana, S.M. Paul, Bhale, Usha and Garg, I.D. 2001. Stem Necrosis disease of potato.
Tech. Bull. No. 54 , CPRI, Shimla.
Misra, S.S. and Chandel, R.S. 2003. Potato white grubs in India. Tech. Bull. No. 60 ,
CPRI, Shimla.
148

DUE TO INSECT-PESTS IN OILSEED CROPS
S. P. Singh
CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125004, India
In India, major oilseed crops are rapeseed-mustard, sunflower, linseed, groundnut castor
and sesame, which played an important role in agriculture economy and contributed
significantly to yellow revolution of the country. Insect pests are one of the major constraints
in increasing and stabilizing the production and productivity of oilseed crops. Pest wise
information about diagnostic symptoms of damage and assessment due to losses of major
pests infesting oilseed crops are described below.
I.
BRASSICA CROPS (Rapeseed-mustard)

Mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi
Damage : The damage is caused by both the nymphs and adults that are feeding in
large numbers often covering the entire surface of flower buds, shoots and pods resulting in
chlorophyll reduction causing pale and curved leaves. Both the nymphs and adults suck cell
sap from leaves, stems, inflorescence and the developing pods. Due to the very high population
of the pest, the vitality of plants is greatly reduced or even plant may die. The leaves acquire
a curly appearance, the flowers fail to form pods and the developing pods do not produce
healthy seeds. The honeydew excreted by the aphids provides congenial conditions for the
growth of sooty mould on the plant. In case of severe infestation the crop yield may be
reduced by even 80 per cent or more.
Painted bug, Bagrada hilaris
Damage : The damage is caused by both nymphs and adults. The painted bug appears
at two stages of crop growth i.e. seedling and mature / harvesting and many times infestation
is carried even to threshing floor. Both nymphs and adults suck cell sap from the leaves and
developing pods, which gradually wilt and dry up. Severe attack at seedling stage may even
kill the plants. The nymphs and adult bugs also excrete a sort of resinous material, which
spoils the pods.
Mustard sawfly, Athalia lugens
Damage : It is a serious pest of all crucifers at the seedling stage. The grubs alone are
destructive. They bite holes into leaves preferring the young growth and skeletonize the
leaves completely. Some times, even the epidermis of the shoot is eaten up. The older
plants, when attacked, do not bear seed.
II. SUNFLOWER
Cutworms, Agrotis spp.
Cutworm damage is caused by larval feeding and normally consists of seedlings being
cut off from 1 inch (25 mm) below the soil surface to as much as 1 to 2 inches (25 to 50 mm)
above the soil surface. Young leaves also may be severely chewed from cutworms (notably
the dark sided cutworm) climbing up to feed on the plant foliage. Most cutworms feed at
night. During the daytime, cutworms usually are found just beneath the soil surface near the
149
base of recently damaged plants. Wilted or dead plants frequently indicate the presence of
cutworms. Cut plants may dry and blow away, leaving bare patches in the field as evidence
of cutworm infestations.
Head borer, Helicoverpa armigera
The head or capitulum borer causes considerable damage to developing grains in the
head capsule. The young larvae first attack the tender parts like bracts and petals, and later
on shift to reproductive parts of the flower heads. Bigger larvae mostly feed on seeds by
making tunnels in the body of the flower heads and often remain concealed. They may also
shift to the backside of the heads and even leaves, and feeding may continue upto maturity.
Star bud stage of the crop is most vulnerable and suffers maximum yield loss.
III. GROUNDNUT
Ground aphid, Aphis craccivora
Damage : Nymphs and adults suck sap from the tender growing shoots, flowers, and
pegs, causing stunting and distortion of the foliage and stems. When the attack occurs at
the time of flowering and pod formation, the yield reduces considerably. Infestation on the
groundnut crop usually occurs 4-6 weeks after sowing. They secrete a sticky fluid (honeydew)
on the plant, which is turned black by a fungus. The blackened honeydew is called sooty
mould.
White grub, Holotrichia consanguinea
Damage : The grubs eat away the nodules, the fine rootlets and may also girdle the
main root, ultimately killing the plants. The damage becomes evident only when the entire
plant dries up due to the grubs feeding on fibrous roots.At night, the beetles feed on foliage
and may completely defoliate even trees like neem (Azadirachta indica) and banyan (Ficus
bengalensis) etc.
IV. CASTOR
Castor hairy caterpillar, Euproctis lunata
Damage : Devastating pest of rain-fed ground nut crop, also feeding on sorghum, cotton,
castor etc. Larvae feed gregariously by scraping the under surface of tender leaflets leaving
the upper epidermal layer intact looks like thin papery. Caterpillars feed on the leaves of
various host plants and in case of severe infestation, they may cause complete defoliation.
The attacked plants remain stunted and produce very little seed.
V. SESAME
Til leaf and pod caterpillar, Antigastra catalaunalis
Damage : Leaf roller/capsule borer, Antigastra catalaunalis Dup. is a major and
serious pest of sesame crop damaging the crop from seedling to flower and capsule stages
at larval stages. At initial stage it webs the upper portion of plant and feed there upon,
whereas at flowering stage it feeds on the flowers and at capsule stage it bores into the
capsules. Thus, 20 to 50 per cent losses in yield are caused. One to three larvae are enough
to denude a fully grown plant within 24 to 48 hours. Young caterpillars feed on leaves. They
also bore into the shoots, flowers, buds and pods. An early attack kills the whole plant, but
infestation of the shoots at a later stage hampers further growth and flowering.
150
VI. LINSEED
Linseed gall-midge, Dasineura lini
This insect appears as a serious pest of linseed in some parts of India. including Andhra
Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and Punjab. The adult is small delicate,
mosquito like orange coloured insect.
Damage : The damage is caused by maggots, which feed on the flower buds and prevent
their proper opening. Consequently the seed dose not set properly. Due to their feeding,
galls are produced and there is no pod formation. The incidence of this pest goes up to 20
per cent Damage is the result of feeding by maggots on buds and flowers. Consequently,
no pod-formation takes place.
ASSESSMENT OF LOSSES IN OILSEEDS DUE TO INSECT PESTS
To estimate the yield losses due to insect pests in rapeseed mustard two sets of
conditions, protected and un-protected need to be maintained by spraying the recommended
insecticide at economic threshold under field conditions.
The population of mustard aphid can be recorded from 10 cm top twig of 10 randomly
selected and tagged plants in each plot, before and after spay of oxydemeton-methyl 0.025%.
Finally crop yield from both the sets (protected and un-protected) for each genotype per
replicate was recorded. The per cent avoidable yield loss may be calculated according as
per the following formula.
Mean yield under protected set : A
Mean yield under un-protected set : B
A-B
Per cent avoidable loss = x 100
A
The avoidable yield losses due to aphid infestation in three different Brassica genotypes
were determined in terms of seed yield varied from 10.9 to 15.3 per cent, it being the lowest
(10.9%) in T-27 and highest (15.3%) in RH-8812. Irrespective of the genotypes the crop
under protected conditions (Oxydemeton-methyl 0.025%) gave 14.0% higher yield than unprotected conditions (Dinesh Kumar, 2008).
According to Dhaliwal et al. (2004), rapeseed-mustard in India generally suffers a 30 per
cent yield loss due to in-sect pests. This loss amounts to 27 300 million of indian rupees,
annually (approximately 600 million US dollars). Losses in yield were too high as B. carinata
sustained 81.86% losses followed by B. juncea (77.25%) and B. napus (75.06%). Highest
losses (56.84 to 78.29%) were observed in number of pods per plant among the yield
components. (Ali et al ., 2003). The loss in seed yield, due to mustard aphid and cabbage
caterpillar, varied from 6.5 to 26.4 per cent. E. sativa suffered the least loss in seed yield
and harboured the minimum population of mustard aphid (2.1 aphids/plant) and cabbage
caterpillar (2.4 larvae/plant). On the other hand, B. carinata was highly susceptible to the
cabbage caterpillar (26.2 larvae/plant) and suffered the maximum yield loss (26.4%). Aphid,
Lipahis eyrsimi Kalt., causes 10-90% losses in yield in India to these crops depending upon
severity of damage and crop stage (Rana, 2005).
151
SUGGESTED READING
Bakhetia, D.R.C. and Sekhon, B.S. 1989. Insect-pests and their management in rapeseedmustard. J. Oilseeds Res . 6 (2) : 269-299.
Chander, S. and Phadke, K.G. 1994. Economic injury levels of rapeseed aphid, Lipaphis
erysimi determined on natural infestation and after different insecticides treatments.
Intern. J. Pest Manag . 40 : 107-110.
Kalra, V.K., Gupta, D.S. and Yadav, T.P. 1983. Effect of cultural practices and aphid infestation
on seed yield and its component taits in Brassica juncea (L.) Czern and Coss. Haryana
agric. Univ. J. Res. 13 : 115-120.
Nain, Rohit, Dashad, S.S. and Singh, S.P. 2009. Relative efficacy of newer insecticides
against pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) infesting sunflower crop. Proc. National
Symposium on role of pesticide application technology in crop protection : towards
sustainability in agriculture . 20-22 January, 2008 organised by Institute of Pesticide
Formulation Technology,Gurgaon, India.pp. 61-62
Singh, H.1982. Studies on insect-pest complex in Brassica campestris L. var. brown sarson.
Thesis, Doctor of Philosophy, Entomology, submitted to Haryana Agricultural University,
Hisar, 192 pp.
Singh, S.P. 2009. Population dynamics and monitoring techniques for aphid in rapeseed
mustard. Proc. Advanced Training Course on recent advances in pest population dynamics
and monitoring techniques. 17th February to 9 th March, 2009, organized by Department
of Entomology, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, India. pp. 95-98
Singh, S.P. 2009. Insect pest management in oilseed crops. Indian Farming 58 (7) : 29-33.
152

DUE TO INSECT-PESTS IN SPICES
Yogesh Kumar
Spices are well known for their aroma and are used for various preparations of food.
Certain spices are also used as medicines. India, a house of spices, is the largest producer,
consumer and exporter of spices in the world accounting for about 35 per cent of the global
trade. The spices are attacked by a wide range of insect-pests, like hemepterans (aphids,
leafhoppers and whiteflies), coleopterans (beetles and weevils), dipteran flies, lepidopterans,
thysanopterans (thrips) and hymenopterans (midge flies) both under field and storage
conditions. The loss due the insect-pests in the field and stores has been estimated varying
from 5 per cent to almost complete. Hence, it becomes essential to know the diagnostic
symptoms, detection of infestation, crop loss assessments of different insect-pests so as
to develop the management strategies and avoid losses. The available information on these
aspects are summarized in this chapter.
ONION AND GARLIC
Onion thrips (Thrips tabaci ) : Nymphs as well as adults damage the crop lacerate the
leaf tissues, suck the sap oozing out of the leaf tissues forming silvery white blotches which
later on turn white brown and the tip of the leaf dries up. The damaged plants remain stunted
having twisted leaves. Due to heavy infestation of this pest, crop gives a burut look. The
seed yield and its viability is affected adversely.
Leaf miner ( Chromatomyia horticola) : Adult of this pest is a small black fly, female
of which lay eggs in the leaf tissues. After hatching the maggot starts feeding in the leaf by
making a white serpentine mine in the leaf tissues. The maggot is about 1-2 mm long, green
in colour and pupates in the mine itself.
Aphids ( Myzus persicae ) : They are green or reddish brown in colour and suck cell sap
from the leaves, and weaken the plants. This pest is minor but can cause great losses by
acting as vector of viral diseases.
Onion maggot (Hylemia = Delia antique) : The adult fly is grey and resembles housefly
but smaller in size. Female lay eggs in the soil near the base of the plant or on the older
leaves. The eggs hatch in one week and the maggot is white legless larvae. Maggots after
hatching crawl to the roots and bulb and feed on them and also on the tender portion of the
plant. Plants due to damage becomes yellow to brown which later dry away and the bulb
may get rotten during heavy infestation.
Helicoverpa armigera : The larva feeds on leaves, inflorescence and developing grains
in onion. Sometimes this borer can cause heavy loss in seed crop.
Spodoptera exigua : Female of this moth lays eggs on the leaf surface. The larva after
hatching enter inside the hollow leaves and feed on them. The damaged leaves droop down.
Sometimes many larva can be seen inside a hollow leaf after splitting.
153
CHILLI
Cutworm ( Agrotis ipsilon) : Larva, the damaging stage is green in colour and nocturnal.
During day it hide in the soil and during night comes out and cut the young plants at the
ground level and drags it away from the original place. Larva pupates in soil. Total life cycle
is completed in about 35 days.
Thrips and aphid : As in onion and garlic.
Spodoptera litura : Its larva is a foliage feeder and makes holes in the leaves.
Helicoverpa armigera : Its larva feeds on the fruit and developing seeds inside the
green chillies causing considerable loss of fruits and seed yield.
Blister beetle ( Mylabris pustulata ) : Polyphagous beetle in chilli feeds on green fruits
and cause nominal loss in yield.
TURMERIC AND GINGER : The major insect-pests damaging the crop are mentioned
below :
Shoot borer ( Conogethes punctiferalis) : The larva bores into the preduo stem and the
frass exrudes out of bore hole. It feeds on growing shoot resulting in yellowing and drying of
shoot. Dead heart formation of the central shoot is main symptom of infestation.
Leaf roller ( Udaspes folus) : The larva cuts and folds the leaf, and feeds within. Plant
growth is stunted due to weakness.
Mealy bugs (Aspidiella curcumae, Stephanitis typica) : Suck the sap from leaves of
turmeric, Pentalonia nigroniervasa feed on giner).
Thrips : Damage same as in onion and garlic. During severe infestation the development
of rhizome is greatly reduced.
Rhizome maggots ( Calobata sp., Chalcidomyia atricornis) : Various species of dipteran
maggots are associated with these two crops. The maggots bore into rhizomes and feed on
them. Damaged rhizomes are decayed. Losses has been assessed upto 37 per cent.
Whitegrub ( Holotrichia sp. ) : This grub feed on the tender rhizomes or at the base of
pseudo stem of turmeric.
CORIANDER, FENNEL, CUMIN, AJWAN AND FENUGREEK :
Coriander aphid ( Hyadaphis coriandri ) : Both adults and nymphs suck the cell sap
from leaves, stem and inflorescence. The attacked portion becomes sticky and damaged
umbel gives burnt appearance. Seed setting in umbel may be completely absent or if formed
seeds are of poor quality. Losses due to this pest has been reported upto 90 per cent or
more (Mittal and Butani, 1994). Other species of aphid, Hyadaphis foeniculi is a pest of
coriander and fennel.
Green peach aphid ( Myzus persicae ) : This is a pest of coriander, fenugreek and
cumin.
Seed midge ( Systotle albipennis) : It is a serious pest of coriander, fennel, cumin and
ajawan. The adult fly lays eggs in developing coriander or fennel. After hatching the young
larva feed inside the seed and pupates there. The adults emerges out by making a round
hole in the seed in the stores. Though the weight loss is low but qualitative loss is heavy
because of non acceptability by consumers.
154
Whitefly ( Bemisia tabaci) : is a polyphagous pest and suck the cell sap. They also
secret honey dew on which black sooty mould grows which interferes with photosynthesis.
Leafhoppers ( Balclutha sp.) : Suck the cell sap from leaves of Ajwan, Zygindia
behrinensis, Empoasca spinosa attack the fenugreek and both adults and nymphs suck the
cell sap from underside of leaves.
INSECT-PESTS OF STORED SPICES
Surviving field eggs and larvae commonly pass to the store to the processor, pantries
and finally to food items which remain virtually unnoticed. However, about 300 different species
of stored product pests have been encountered with only about 18 spices of primary economic
importance. Based on feeding behaviour insects can be grouped into two categories viz.
external feeders which complete all the life stages outside the grain and internal feeders
which complete all immature stages inside the grain. The major insect-pests of stored spices
are mentioned below:Cigarette beetle ( Lasioderma serricorne ) : It infests chillies, turmeric, dry ginger and
coriander both whole grains and processed spices. It is a tortoise shaped dark brown shining
beetle. Grubs are cream coloured crescrent shaped larvae. The female beetle lays eggs
loosely or singly on dried spices their seeds or in their powder. Both beetles and adults
cause damage. They make holes in the seeds and in powder the grubs stick the powder
around their body and make balls and feed inside the powder boll. The infested seeds or
powdered spices are unhygienic and not worth consuming.
Moth ; ( Ephestia cautella ) : It is small moth. Moth lays eggs in the powdered spices.
Larva is the damaging stage which feed on the processed powder and make web or silken
cocoon for pupation. They contaminate the spice with their exuvae and faeces and the produce
becomes not worth consuming.
Drug beetle ( Stegobium paniceum) : It is a pest in coriander, fennel and cumin both
whole grains and processed spices. Both adult and grubs cause damage. Female beetle
lays eggs singly and loosely among the food material. Newly hatched grubs feed by making
tunnels in the food material by cutting small holes. Adult beetle is small stout 3-4 mm long
with light dull brown colour. Total life cycle is completed in 6-8 weeks.
Sawtoothed grain beetle ( Oryzaephilus surinamensis ) and Merchant grain beetle
( O. mercator ) : These beetles probably can not attack whole undamaged grains, so they
may be associated with other whole grain pests and feed on the seeds damaged by other
pests.
Rust red flour beetle ( Tribolium castaneum) and confused flour beetle ( T. confusum)
: They feed on seeds of spices and powdered spices. They produce secretions that
contaminate the material giving it a disagreeable odor and taste.
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF LOSSES CAUSED BY INSECT-PESTS IN STORED
OR PROCESSED SPICES
Regular and timely inspection of insect-pests populations must be done to manage the
populations to avoid to cause damage in stored or processed spices. Generally, the
inspections are necessary once a fortnight during rainy season and once a month during
other seasons. Various methods of detection of pest populations and for assessment of
losses are given below.
155
Sieving : Sieving the seeds on 10 to 16 mesh sieves make the insects present in the
seed mass get collected below sieve.
Disturbing of stocks : Disturbing of stacks or bulk surfaces by moving a long stick over
vertical stack surfaces or surfaces may be struck to disturb resting adult insects.
Agitation of sacks : Agitation of sacks by throwing bags of seeds or processed spices
up and down several times and then leaving them for 10 to 20 min. will make the adult
insects to walk out on the bag surface even when the population is quite low.
Feeling temperature in bulk store : Walking over a bulk of grain with bare feet indicates
its condition. If it is cool and free blowing then the bulk store is free from insect populations.
If there is a hot spot or a fairly solid patch is found that means high dust content or insect
populations.
Traps : Different types of traps have been developed (a) probe trap (b) pit fall traps which
are put in the storage bins. The insects are collected in these traps and their populations
can be counted.
Dead insects : When a residual insecticide has been applied to a surface and dead
insects continue to accumulate there, then this is usually an indication of live insects in the
area.
Stimulative sprays : Sprays which stimulate insect activity (pyrethrum insecticide) are
useful in exposing hidden insects present in crevices specially in vehicles which are to be
used to carry the produce.
Powdered spots : Presence of powdered spots outside the stored bags and skin cast
by the larvae indicate the insect infestation in grain masses.
HIDDEN INFESTATION
Density method : Involves the use of 2 solutions of different specific gravity. The seeds
are immersed in sodium silicate the methyl chloroform and a 3 layers separation occurs.
The non-infested seeds sink to the bottom, the infested seeds float and light seeds including
those infested by early stages of insects hang in the line of separation between the two
fluids.
Gelatinization : In this method seeds are boiled for 10 min. in 10 per cent solution of
sodium hydroxide. The boiling makes the seeds translucent and the presence of internal
infestation is indicated.
Floatation method : Cleaned seeds are coarsely grounded and then soaked in a wateralcohol solution or in boiling water and finally mixed with gasoline or mineral oil. The insects
float with the oil layer.
Spctrophotometric analysis : Spectrophotometric analysis of dihydroxyphenol occurring
in insect cuticle produce certain dyes when these react with dichloroquinone chlorimide.
Staining : Acid fuchsin stain is prepared by mixing 50 ml glacial acetic acid in 950 ml of
distilled water and adding 0.5g acid fuchsin. Samples of seeds are soaked in warm water for
5 min. and then immersed in the stain for 2-5 minutes. Finally the excess stain is removed
by washing with water. By this method egg plugs of weevils are stained bright cherry red and
feeding punctures including mechanical injuries in light pink (Frankenfeld, 1948).
156
Aural method : Insect infestation can be noticed quantatively with the help of a special
instrument known as Acoustic apparatus. Mechanical vibration produced by the insects, is
picked up by a receiver and converted into electric signals. After amplifying several thousand
times, the signal is conveyed to a transmitter or head phone.
Ninhydrin colour reaction : This method is based on a chemical indicator technique in
which the body fluid of the insects (free amino acids of coelomic fluids of insects) produce a
colour reaction (purple spots) with ninhydrin impregnated filter paper (0.7% solution in
acetone). An instrument called Ashman Simon infestation detection has also been
manufactured for this purpose.
X-ray radiographic method : This method was suggested by Milner et al. (1950) but
recently the use of Polaroid radiographic media has been suggested.
Carbondioxide method : In this method, sample free from moving insects is incubated
for 24h at 25 oC. Level of 0.3 per cent CO2 at 14% moisture content indicates that the sample
is insect free, whereas a level between 0.5 to 1.0 per cent indicated that the sample is unfit
for long storage.
SUGGESTED READING
Koya, K.M.A., Balakrishnan, R., Devanshayam, S. and Banerjee, S.K. 1986. A sequential
sampling strategy for the control of shoot borer ( Dichocrosis punctiferalis Guen.) on
ginger ( Zingiber officinale Rosc.) in India. Tropical Pest Management 32 : 343-46.
Mittal, V.P. and Butani, P.G. (1994). Pests of seed spices. In : Advances in Horticulture
Vol.10. Plantation and Spice Crops Part-2 (1994) Eds. : K.L. Chadha and P. Rethinam.
pp. 825-855.
Frankenfeld, J.C. 1948. Staining methods for detecting weevil infestation on grain. USDA
But. Ent. and PI Quarantine Cric. ET-256 . pp. 4-Mimeographed.
Milner, M., Lee, M.R. and Katz, R. 1950. Application of X-ray technique to the detection of
internal insect infestation. J. econ. Ent. 43 : 933-35.
157
REMOTE SENSING AND ITS APPLICATION

IN PEST DAMAGE DIAGNOSIS
Ramesh S. Hooda
Haryana Space Application Centre (HARSAC)
1.0 Concept of Remote Sensing
Remote sensing is defined as the science and technology of obtaining information about
an object without being in physical contact with it. Electromagnetic radiation, which is reflected
or emitted from an object, is the usual source of remote sensing data. A device to detect the
electromagnetic radiation reflected or emitted from an object is called a remote sensor or
sensor. Cameras or scanners are examples of remote sensors. A vehicle to carry the
sensor is called a platform. Aircraft or satellites are used as platforms. Since Landsat-1,
the first earth observation satellite was launched in 1972, remote sensing has become widely
used.
The characteristics of an object can be
determined using reflected or emitted
electro-magnetic radiation, from the object.
Eeach object has a unique and different
characteristic of reflection or emission due
to its inherent chemical and physical
characteristics. The concept of remote
sensing is illustrated in figure 1.
The electromagnetic radiations received from
the sun are emitted or reflected by various
objects on the earth.
The reflected or emitted radiations are
attenuated by the atmosphere and detected
by the sensor fitted on a platform i.e.
satellite or aircraft. The remote sensing data Fig. 1 Data collection by Remote Sensing
received at the ground station is processed automatically by computer and/or manually
interpreted by humans, and finally utilized in agriculture, land use, forestry, geology, hydrology,
oceanography, meteorology, environment etc.
2.0 Energy source and Radiation Principles
The Electromagnetic Spectrum (EMS) is an array of electromagnetic radiation, which
moves in the form of wave that are characterized by their wavelength or frequency. The EMS
(fig. 2) has different regions characterized by wavelength and frequency of waves as described
above. Visible light is only a part of the entire spectrum of electromagnetic radiations ranging
from 0.4 to 0.7 m of wavelength to which our eyes are sensitive. Although names such as
ultraviolet and microwave are generally assigned to regions of EMS for convenience, there is
no clear-cut dividing line between one spectral region and the next. Besides the blue, green
and red bands of the visible range, Infra-red (IR) and microwave portions of the spectrum are
most commonly used in remote sensing. Within the IR portion the thermal IR energy is
directly related to the sensation of heat, near and mi-IR energy are not. Based on the source
of radiation, remote sensing technology can be divided into two classes namely passive
158
remote sensing and active remote

sensing. In passive technique, reflected or
emitted electromagnetic radiation from
natural source is measured. Most remote
sensing programs utilize the suns energy,
which is the predominant source of energy
at earths surface. The black body radiation
emitted by earths surface is also utilized
in passive remote sensing. The
instruments/sensors, which measure this
kind of energy, are called passive sensors
or radiometers. In active remote sensing,
earths surface is illuminated by artificial
man made radiation e.g. radar or Lidar. The
instruments used in active remote sensing
are called active sensors.
Fig. 2. Electromagnetic spectrum and bands

used in remote sensing
3.0 Concept of signature

The science of remote sensing is
essentially built on the basis of signatures
of objects. The knowledge of signature is
used to identify the object, which is
somewhat similar to identification of person
on the basis of knowledge of his signature.
In Remote Sensing, objects are identified
based on the knowledge of spectral
reflectance of object. This is called
spectral signature. Fig. 3 shows the
spectral reflectance of various objects in
different wavelength regions. As water
absorbs heavily in all the Fig. 3
Reflectance properties of different objects Fig. 3. Spectral reflectance of different objects
wavelength regions, it shows very less
reflectance and thus appears black on the satellite image. The snow on the other hand
reflects heavily in all the wavelength bands and looks white on the satellite image. In general,
reflectance increases with wavelength and increases in the near infrared region.
Vegetation shows a typically different reflectance characteristic. In the visible region, it
absorbs in the blue and red regions due to the presence of chlorophyll and other leaf pigments.
Green part of the light is reflected which gives the vegetation its green colour. The higher
reflectance in the near IR region of EM radiation is caused by their internal cellular structure.
The abundance of intercellular spaces in the mesophyll cells interspersed by the hydrated
cell walls bring about sudden changes in the refractive index of the medium causing refraction
of the infrared radiations. Presence of water leads to absorption of radiation at 1.45 and 1.95
m. Reflectance of soil depends upon the chemical and physical properties of the soil like
moisture content, organic matter, iron concentration, soil texture and surface roughness.
Reflectance of soil gently increases from the visible to the near infrared. It may be observed
that spectral reflectance is negatively related to moisture content. A sandy soil has high
reflectance and clay soils tend to have a fairly diffuse reflectance. Soil organic matter tends
to decrease the reflectance.
159
4.0 Multi-spectral Imaging

As indicated above, different objects on the earth have different reflectance properties in
different wavelength regions of the spectrum. Therefore, the objects can be better
discriminated if the information by the remote sensing system is collected in different bands
instead of the entire length of the spectrum. The reflective or emitted energy received from
the entire length of the spectrum is called Panchromatic data whereas the data received
by different receivers of the sensor in different bands is called Multi-spectral data. Multiband
images are images sensed simultaneously from the same geometric vantage point but in
different bands of the EM spectrum. Different types of sensors are designed to collect
panchromatic and/ or multi-spectral data. The multi-spectral data of individual bands like
blue, green, red or near infra-red (NIR) is depicted by the shades of gray. A coloured image
can be prepared of the multi-spectral data by assigning three primary colours of blue, green
and red to different bands and superimposing them. The best combination of multiband
images for discriminating a given scene varies with the spectral response patterns of the
objects of interest within that scene. Regardless of the number and wavelength bands of the
images, only three bands are selected for viewing at one time, with one band displayed as
blue, one band as green and one band as red. Figure 4 indicates the combination of bands
and assigned colours to prepare True Colour Composite (TCC) or False Colour Composite
(FCC) images.
Fig. 4. Preparation of TCC and FCC
Though TCC gives the actual colour image of the terrain but all the information contents
of the data are not included in this because the IR band which has valuable information
about vegetation is excluded. In order to enhance the capability of interpretation, normally
red colour is assigned to NIR, green to red, and blue to green reflectance. The resultant
product/ image is called False Colour Composite (FCC) because in this the colour in the
image do not represent the actual colour of the object. These false colour of objects are at
first confusing to the interpreter because of familiar colour of object is shown in wrong
colour. For example, vegetation, which is green, is seen as red in FCC. FCC is one of the
powerful means of visualizing the effects of spectral properties beyond the range of human
vision. Table color Discrimination based on Wavelengths of Spectral Reflectance (IRS)
5.0 Resolution
Resolution of a remote sensing system is defined as the ability of total system to render
a sharply defined image. Three types of resolutions are important in providing a sharply
defined image: spatial resolution, spectral resolution and radiometric resolution. In addition,
temporal resolution of a remote sensing system provides ability of the system for repetitive
coverage of the same area. Definition of these are given below:
Spectral Resolution : Refers to bandwidth of electromagnetic wave band used in the
sensing system.
160
Spatial Resolution : spatial resolution is the geometric resolution of sensing system

i.e. ability to distinguish two closely spaced objects. In optical remote sensing, it is
usually described by the Instantaneous Field of View (IFOV) i.e. the maximum angle of
view in which a sensor can effectively detect electro-magnetic energy.
Radiometric Resolution : refers to degree of sensitivity of a sensor to intensity
variations. It is determined by the number of discrete levels into wich input signal is
divided.
Temporal Resolution : refers to repetitivity of sensor coverage on ground. It depends
an orbital parameters and swath of the sensor system.
6.0 Remote sensing satellite data reception in India
The state-of-the-art along-track scanners onboard the satellites have an array of detectors
called Charged Coupled Devices (CCDs). There are different array of CCDs corresponding to
each band. Each CCD receives the reflected or emitted radiations from a fixed area of the
ground, depending upon its spectral resolution, and converts it into an electric signal. Each
electric signal is assigned a Digital Number (DN) value depending upon the intensity of the
radiations being received. The information received from a specified ground area (i.e. 5.8 x
5.8 m or 23.5 x 23.5 m) corresponding to the spatial resolution of the data becomes the
smallest unit of the image and is called the Picture Element or Pixel. The DN values
corresponding to each pixel are stored onboard the recorder of the satellite and whenever
the satellite reaches within the reception limits of a ground reception station these values
are transmitted to the ground station in the form of microwaves and the data is stored on
High Density Digital Tapes. The digital images or hard copy paper prints are prepared at the
data centre to supply to the users. Some radiometric and geometric corrections are made in
the data before supplying it to the users.
All the satellite data in India from our own and foreign satellites is received at Shadnagar
reception centre (near Hyderabad) of National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA) and achieved
and supplied to the users by National Remote Sensing Agency Data Centre (NDC). The
characteristics of different satellite data products supplied by NDC and their comparative
prices are provided in Table 1.
7.0 Remote Sensing for Crop Pest Damage Diagnosis
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) are
currently being used for variable rate application of pesticides, herbicide and fertilizers in
Precision Agriculture applications in the large farms of western countries on operational
basis, but the comparatively lesser-used tools of Remote Sensing and Spatial Analyses can
be of additional value in identifying pest damage. The tools has the potential to provide
valuable information in an integrated pest management context, allowing for a complete
understanding (via remote mapping or spatial modeling) of the spatial complexity of the
abiotic and biotic characteristics of a field and its crops, and providing information about
pests that are present, or likely to occur.
7.1 Manifestation of disease in reflectance properties of plants
Since the satellite remote sensing is based upon the detection of reflected EMRs from
the object, any pest which supplies sufficient plant stress to significantly distort the
reflectance signal is a candidate for detection by means of remote sensing. Distortions of
reflectance characteristics of crop canopy may result from:
151
Table 1. Characteristics of satellite data available in India through NRSC, Hyderabad

Satellite
(year launched)
Indian satellites
IRS 1A/1B
(1988,1991)
IRS 1C/1D
(1995, 1998)
Resourcesat (P6)
(2004)
Cartosat-I
Foreign satellites
NOAA I-M
(USA, 1994-98)
Landsat-7
(USA, 1999)
Spot-5
(France, 2002)
IKONOS-1/2
(1999, 2001)
(Space Imagine)
Quick Bird
(Digital Globe, 01)
Sensor
Spatial
Repetitivity
Resolution (m)
(Days)
LISS I
72.50
LISS II 36.25
LISS-III
PAN
WiFS
L-IV Mono
Mx
LISS-III
AWiFS
Scene Size
(Sq.Km.)
22
22
148x174
74x87
PAN
Stereo Pair
23.5
5.8
188.0
5.8
5.8
23.5
56.0 (Nadir)
70.0 (End Pixel)
2.5
2.5 (F/A)
24
24
AVHRR/3
1100
Daily
2700x2700
ETM
30
16
185x185
HRGMxl
HRG-PAN
PAN
Mxl
10
5
1
4
Steerable
26
60x60
60x60
PAN
Mxl
0.6
2.44
5
5
141x141
70x70
810x810
70x70
5
24
5
5
5
23x23
141x141
740x740
27.5x27.5
27.5x27.5
11x11
4
Steerable
Steerable
11x11
16.5x16.5
16.5x16.5
Feeding injury
Foliage deposits from the end products of insect metabolism
Secondarily from fungus growth on these products
Feeding injury may consequently cause
Discoloration of the foliage
Geometric distortion of leaves
Distortion in the general shape of the plant (e.g. tree crown)
Defoliation
Remote sensing may not be useful in situation where insects/pests dont affect the crop
foliage to alter its reflectance properties. For example, it was difficult to identify the Americal
Boll Worm infected cotton crop in Northern India, as the bollworm affects only the boll of the
crop and the leaves remain un-affected.
7.2 Crop Stress Detection
As indicated in figure 4 above, Red and Near Infra Red (NIR) reflectance of the plants
exhibit opposite behavior. A healthy unstressed plant has very low red reflectance and very
high NIR reflectance. But as the plant stress increases due to any reason (water, salinity,
nutrient or pest) or as the plants senescence starts, the red reflectance starts increasing
and the NIR decreases. This opposite behavior of vegetation has been exploited by some
162
workers for developing vegetation indices which are indicative of the vigour or health of the
crop. Some of the important crop stress indices are as under :
Ratio Vegetation Index (RVI)
R/ NIR
Vegetation Index Number (VIN)
NIR/ R
Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)
NIR-R/ NIR+ R
Transformed Vegetation Index (TVI)
/ NDVI + 0.5
Perpendicular Vegetation Index (PVI)
/(R s R v) 2 + (NIR s NIR v) 2
An important point to be noted is that what is detected in remotely sensed imagery is

not the water/ nutrient stress or disease /pest infestation per se rather the net effect of
stress and environment on crop growth. It is the skill and keen observation of an interpreter
and a prior information about the region under a study that allows the interpreter to ascribe
the observed anomaly in the temporal chromatic profile to the cause.
7.3 Red Edge Shift
Rapid increase in reflection from the red to the near infrared is characteristic of vegetation
and termed the red-edge. Vegetation absorbs most of the light in the visible part of the
spectrum but is strongly reflective at wavelengths greater than 700 nm. There could be
about 50% change in reflectance of different vegetations between 680 nm to 730 nm. This is
an advantage to plants to avoid overheating during photosynthesis. The phenomenon accounts
for the brightness of foliage in infrared photography. It is used in remote sensing to monitor
plant activity and could be useful to detect light-harvesting organisms on distant planets.
A shift in the Red Edge or change of slope of the red edge has been reported in diseased
plants in the ground based studies. Fig. 5 indicate the change in the Fig. 5. Red-edge shift
in diseased plant shape of the red edge in the necrotic and chloretic plant.
7.4 Pre-Visual Detection of Plant Diseases
Ground based studies using Ground Truth Radiometer (GTR) and Infra-Red Gun indicated
the potential of detecting some of the diseases three to five days before visual symptoms
became apparent. This was possible because some of these diseases effect the leaf structure
and consequently the infra-red reflectance before the appearance of visual symptoms.
However, these changes in the reflectance properties of the plant are too feeble to be detected
by present day signals onboard the satellites. However, Infra-red imaging using aerial surveys
have been found useful for this purpose.
Pre-visual detection of onset of crop stress due to water and/or nutrient stress, diseases
and insect attack is especially important when management options exist to alleviate the
stress conditions before yield reduction occurs. Remote Sensing technique offers the
advantage of integrating large samples of crop canopy in a short time. Multi-spectral sensor(s)
carried on an aircraft/ spacecraft allows a rapid large area coverage with a resolution depend
on sensors and altitude flown. In addition to this, R. S. technique offers periodic monitoring
of crop development and it is important for efficient crop stress monitoring for :
i.
Early detection and timely warning of the onset of stress.
ii. Recommendation of appropriate crop protection measures.

iii. Evaluation of effectiveness of protection measures.
iv. Evaluation of regional as well as national crop yield loss due to crop stress.
163
7.5 Hyper-Spectral Imaging for disease detection

Hyper-Spectral Sensors collect data in number of
bands in very narrow band widths of about 10 nm. This
allows the detection of light in narrower wavelengths..
Although originally developed for mining and geology due
to its ability to identify various minerals, hyper-spectral
remote sensing is used in a wide array of real-life
applications. This technology is continually becoming more
available to the public, and has been used in a wide variety
of ways.
Fig. 5. Reflectance pattern in relation
to damage symptoms
Hyper-spectral Imaging is different from multispectral
imaging in the sense that multispectral data contains about 4-10 bands whereas the hyperspectral data contains hundreds of bands. Moreover, hyper-spectral data is a set of contiguous
bands (usually by one sensor), whereas the multispectral is a set of optimally chosen spectral
bands that are typically not contiguous and can be collected from multiple sensors.
Hyper-spectral data has been indicated to be useful for detection of insect/ pest infestation
in crops. Scientists from Space Applications Centre, Ahmedabad used hyper-spectral data
based indices to detect sclerotinia disease in mustard crop. Various Disease-Water Stress
Indices (DWSI), as under, were developed using various band data to correlate it with the
disease score collected from the field:
DWSI-1 : R 800 /R1600
DWSI-2 : R 1660 /R550
DWSI-3 : R 1660 /R680
DWSI-4 : R 550/R 680
DWSI-5 : (R800-R 550)/(R1600 +R680)
Fig. 6. Correlation of DWSI-3 with disease
As indicated in figure 6, DSWI-3 was found to be highly correlated with the disease
score with a R 2 value of approximately 0.7. The study indicated a great potential of identifying
pest infestation using hyper-spectral data and more of such studies are required to be taken
up for various insect/ pest infestation in different crop.
7.6 Locust Monitoring
Locust incidence follows the natural rhythm of bioclimatic occurrence. The breeding
(egg laying), completion of various stages of life cycle, maturity and mass flight / upsurge
are determined by: favourable condition at ground segment (in terms of soil moisture, texture,
surface hardness, salinity, temperature, vegetation type and density and foot print of rainfall
on ground) and favourable condition in space segment (i.e. max. and min air temperature,
humidity, sunshine hours, velocity and direction of temperature, humidity, sunshine hours,
velocity and direction of wind vector, upper atmospheric circulation pattern like convergence
zone).
Some of the above information can be generated using remote sensing data and other
can be collected from the ground. All this information can be integrated in GIS to develop a
Spatial Decision Support System (SDSS) for locust monitoring. By interpreting optical and
radar data, together with ground based intelligence, it evaluates various parameters which
determine the risk of locust breeding and invasion. This enables locust control to be prioritized
based upon uptodate and real time environmental conditions. This mechanism has been
developed by Regional Remote Sensing Service Centre (ISRO), Jodhpur.
164
USE OF ADVANCED COMPUTER TOOLS IN

SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATIONS
A. K. Chhabra
Department of Plant Breeding,
CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar 125 004, Haryana, India
The education of teachers and researchers must be adapted to present technology.
Almost everyone in an institute is accustomed to the use of computers today at least for
word processing. But there are very few education sites where they are taken beyond this
point of computer usage. Although not everyone need to know programming, computer
graphics, hypermedia and so on, they should at least be given some insight into the
possibilities available with computers today.
In this brief note about usage of modern computer skills in biological presentations
would be discussed to benefit the trainees enabling them to make efficient use of the computer
facilities they have at their home place.
Person intended to learn presentation tools must have some idea about the following
areas/software :
Making presentations through PowerPoint (preferably XP or higher version)
Word Processing (MS Word)
Data feeding and processing (MS Excel)
Scanning of picture and text (Scanner)
Labeling of pictures (MS PowerPoint)
Editing of pictures (Photoshop, Corel etc.)
Creation of web pages (Front Page, MS Publisher etc.)
Use of digital camera (floppy/card/)
Creation of animated gifs (Animation Shop2)
Preparing Electronic manuals (CD Writer)
Using multimedia (Audio, Video accessories)
Sound Recording (Mike & sound-proof room)
Editing documentary movies (VCD Writer and editor)
Use of internet and e-mails (Netscape, internet explorer etc.)
Searching web for the topic of choice (Search Engines: Google, AltaVista etc.)
Creation of Hyper-books (Online teaching/education)
Creating Exercise Environment
Creating interactive CD media
Creative imagination
VCD cutter etc.
165
A Computer Aided Learning Package includes following stuff:

EQUIPMENTS
PIV Desktop Computer (Windows Vista Compatible is
preferred), Scanner, Digital Camera, Web camera, LCD
Projector, Projection screen and Multimedia
Softwares
Office XP or higher version, Windows 98 or above
( p r e f e r a b l y Wi n X P ) , G i f a n i m a t o r, Vo i c e r e c o r d e r ,
Superegoo,CD writing software (Nero), Video card, TV tuner
card and Flash media player etc.
Creation of presentation:
Simple presentation (text only), Narrated Presentation,
Hyper linked presentation, Hyper linking with MS office files,
Hyper linking with Picture files, Hyper linking with Macromedia
flash files, Hyper linking with Gif animations, Hyper linking
with media files, Hyper linking within ppt files, Hyper linking
with internet files (online animated files), Autorun CDs and Webbased browsable CDs.
LOGO PRESENT ON THE

COMPUTERS THAT ARE
WINDOWS VISTA CAPABLE
Microsoft has recently released a document which would give details on what exactly
a PC requires to be Vista capable and what constitutes a Windows Vista Capable
computer. However, a Window Vista Capable PC would mean that it can run the
home edition of the Vista and would feature the Vista Logo (how kind of Microsoft!).
So if you are going to go PC shopping very soon, you should check out the label
which would read Designed for Windows XPWindows Vista Capable.
BRIEF DISCRIPTION ABOUT SOME SPECIALIZED SOFTWARES
Macromedia Flash
Originally a web animation tool, Macromedia Flash has quickly become a standard for
creating a dynamic, interactive experience. The Flash authoring program can be used to
create animations, games, websites, standalone modules, and also has audio and video
capabilities.
Macromedia Fireworks
Macromedia Fireworks is an image-editing program geared specifically towards producing
web images. It is often used to create JavaScript effects as well for the program will generate
both JavaScript and html to handle different sorts of image interactions.
Macromedia Dreamweaver
With Macromedia Dreamweaver you can easily create both websites and web
applications. Aside from a WYSIWYG editor, Dreamweaver also has extended hand-coding
functionality and supports the new XHTML standard as well as many other scripting languages
including Coldfusion, PHP, and ASP.
Macromedia Freehand
Comparable to Adobe Illustrator but with far fewer options. Macromedia Freehand is a
vector illustration tool. Whereas Fireworks is Macromedias editor for bitmapped images,
Freehand works in a total vector environment.
166
Adobe Premiere
Adobe Premiere is a video editing software package with the ability to layer, crossfade
and effects. Voiceovers, environmental sounds, and music can be imported and mixed with
Premieres limited audio support. With support for both digital and analog video capture and
the ability to output in a number of different formats Premiere is one of the most widely used
video editing applications available.
Adobe Photoshop
Adobe Photoshop is a near-perfect image editing tool. Photoshop can be used for both
print and digital and has support for all major image formats. Far superior to Macromedia
Fireworks, Photoshop is the best image editing application there is.
Adobe Illustrator
One of the major strengths of Adobe Illustrator is the extent to which it resembles
Photoshop. As a vector-image editor, it shares the same relationship with Photoshop that
Freehand has with Fireworks. While the Fireworks/Freehand combination is an excellent
choice for trainees, those in need of more options and an overall deeper experience should
go with Photoshop/Illustrator.
Adobe Photoshop Elements
A pared-down version of Adobes excellent Photoshop image editing software. While this
program does retain many of the features of its parent, it is intended for light editing by
those who might be confounded by the amount of options in Photoshop. Excellent for editing
photographs.
Adobe Acrobat
Adobe Acrobat can be used to author the Portable Document Format [PDF] or convert
other documents created in Microsoft Word or other word processing packages into PDF
documents. The advantage of having a document in PDF format is that it can be read on any
machine that has the Adobe Acrobat Reader installed [a free download] and it also retains
the quality of the original document.
Adobe GoLive
Comparable to Macromedia Dreamweaver, Adobe GoLive is a website creation tool allowing
both WYSIWYG and straight code editing capabilities.
Adobe InDesign
Adobe InDesign is a page layout software package similar in functionality to Microsoft
Publisher and is used for print layout in the creation of brochures, pamphlets, and flyers.
Adobe LiveMotion
Adobe LiveMotion is similar to Macromedia Flash as it allows for the creation of animation
and interactive content.
Microsoft Word
Part of the Microsoft office suite, Word is a word processing and document creation utility.
Microsoft Access
Part of the Microsoft Office suite, Access is a database creation and management utility.
Microsoft Visio
Microsoft Visio is used to map web site architectures. A great tool for taking a website
apart visually in order to either get a grasp of how it works or to plan its reconstruction.
167
Microsoft FrontPage
Part of the Microsoft office suite, FrontPage is a website creation utility. While FrontPage
can be compared to both macromedia, Dreamweaver and Adobe GoLive, it is definitely the
poorest of the bunch.
Microsoft Excel
Part of the Microsoft office suite, a spreadsheet creation and management utility.
Microsoft Publisher
Microsoft publisher is primarily used for print layout in the creation of brochures,
pamphlets, and flyers.
Microsoft PowerPoint
Part of the Microsoft office suite, PowerPoint is used to create slideshows for
presentations.
Scansoft Omnipage Pro
Scansoft Omnipage Pro is an optical character recognition program with the ability to
read scanned documents and translate the letter shapes from the scanned image into type
to be used in a word processor.
ELECTRONIC MANUALS :
Electronic manual means information in the digital form that can be read on any PC
having capability of retrieving the information written on the storage media (floppy/zip disc/
CD/Pen drive etc.). A demonstration of an electronic manual being prepared for UG and PG
students of Plant Breeding will be given in the training. This manual can be used for various
purposes: delivering lectures, seminars, publishing proceedings of seminar/symposia etc.,
Publishing high quality pictures in digital form saves resources and its distribution is faster
than hard bound big books.
Preparation of such manuals requires little knowledge of all the software listed above.
Moreover, internet links can also be provided on the CD which can be directly accessed to
get up to date information while being on the internet.
INTERNET
World Wide Web as an Aid to Search and Explore New Information of global
Importance : The World Wide Web (www) is a big part of the Internet; to understand the
World Wide Web, one first has to understand its home - the Internet. The Internet is the
global Network of Networks, linking thousands of computer networks together allowing
communication with millions of computer users and access to resources from around the
world. The Internet is an enormous library or collection of libraries through which one can
access information on any topic of concern. It doesnt matter what type of computer is used
for connection to the Internet, a virtually limitless wealth of resources is available for everyday
use. The Internet and the World Wide Web are (or will soon become) most important
components for a research institute, college or school. The use of the internet also provides
opportunities for inquiry-based learning through search engines and specially designed sites
to extract specific information. Various important scientific journals also offer such
opportunities to their users. Internet is the largest province for researchers and academics
in laboratories. Now, the Internet is everywhere, it is growing rapidly worldwide and has
gained widespread popularity relatively recently.
168
List of Search Engines Worldwide

The search engines below are all excellent choices to start with when searching for
information.
Google:
: http://www.google.com
AllTheWeb.com (FAST)
:http://www.alltheweb.com Yahoo
: http://www.yahoo.com
MSN Search
: http://search.msn.com
Lycos
: http://www.lycos.com
Ask Jeeves
: http://www.askjeeves.com
AOL Search
: http://aolsearch.aol.com/ (internal)
: http://search.aol.com/ (external)
Teoma
: http://www.teoma.com
WiseNut
: http://www.wisenut.com
Inktomi
: http://www.inktomi.com
LookSmart
: http://www.looksmart.com
Open Directory
: http://dmoz.org/
Overture
: http://www.overture.com/
AltaVista
: http://www.altavista.com
HotBot
: http://www.hotbot.com
Netscape Search
: http://search.netscape.com
Free Software from net

Internet is the best source to get many software called as Freeware. There are several
sites where you can get them. The most important one is http://freedownload.com and http:/
/www.download.com.
Practical Demonstrations :
Practical demonstrations of each and every type of presentation discussed here in would
be given to the participants during this workshop to make them well versed with the uses
and applications of all the scientific computer tools.
SUGGESTED READING
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/425/425syl.htm
http://latin.arizona.edu/~mgen/micgen_98/Lect24/Lect_24.htm
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~akrueger/online.htm
http://www.du.edu/
http://www.teachers-resources.com/index.html
http://www.teachers-resources.com/teaching-topics.html#Biochemistry
http://www.teachers-resources.com/teaching-topics.html#Biology
http://www.ezlink.com/~edu/EBiology.htm
http://www.infopeople.org/training/past/2001/intranet/LibraryUsesHandout.pdf
http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Communications_and_Networking/Intranet/
169
Important websites related to Entomology :

http://pest.cabweb.org/PDF/BER/Ber88-6/Ber88577.pdf.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=405094&fy=2004
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/acarology/saas/saa/pdf07/003-014.pdf
https://www.who.int/tdr/grants/workplans/entomol.htm
http://www.scipub.net/botany/molecular-markers-plant-genetics-biotechnology.html
http://www.scipub.net/entomology/index.html
http://entomology.wisc.edu/~dshoemak/Publications/Pub.htm
http://www.intl-pag.org/5/abstracts/p-5c-159.html
http://insects.ucr.edu/people/heraty.html
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/feb252005/541.pdf
http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Entomology/courses/en575/en575.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez
query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10331278&dopt=Abstract
http://www.mrcindia.org/mol-ent.htm
170
METHODOLOGY OF PESTICIDE RESIDUE ESTIMATION

IN VARIOUS FIELD CROPS
Beena Kumari
From an agricultural industry perspective, pesticides are an important component of
economic and effective pest control and their continued use is essential. All farm chemicals
must be utilized strategically in the farming system and only be applied with care by
competent operators.
Pollution of the environment poses a threat to the health and wealth of every nation. Due
to use of pesticides in the modern agriculture, their residues become one of the major
sources of organic pollutants. Residues of the pesticides are present in micro quantities in
the matrix, hence involves a complicated procedure involving many steps for their analysis.
What are Pesticides?
Pesticides (or farm chemicals and agro chemicals) are those substances which are
used to control, destroy, repel or attract pests in order to minimize their detrimental effects.
Although many pesticides are injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and
fishes or wildlife, their usage is indispensable for protection of food plants and animals from
death or diseases. Some pesticides are very toxic and their entry in the environment is very
quick. Several are not highly toxic to warm- blooded beings but more or less persistent, so
that their residues may contaminate food, animal feed and our environment for a long time.
According to insecticide Act, 1968, under section 9(3), in India, 230 pesticides are
registered for use till date (August, 2011). Over the years, the indiscriminate use of these
toxic but highly beneficial compounds has given rise to many problems like resistance in
pests, resurgence of pests and persistence of their residues, which has led to disturbance
of agro-ecosystem. Occurrence of pesticide residues has become so wide spread that no
component of environment is free from them. The residue level of a food or feed sample
presents a health hazard for the consumer. This is partly because of development of highly
sensitive analytical techniques, which can defect very low amounts of residues, which were
earlier reported as non- detectable. The presence of residues above the permissible limit is
also a major bottleneck in the acceptance of food commodities by importing countries in
context to World Trade Organization (WTO) challenge. So, there is an urgent need to find
eco friendly and efficient alternative for the control of pests.
Pesticide Residues
Substances, which remain in or on a feed or food commodity, soil, air or water following
use of a pesticide. For regulatory purposes it includes the parent compound and any specified
derivatives such as degradation and conversion products, metabolites and impurities
considered to be of toxicological significance (F AO, 1986).
Methodology for detection
Pesticide residue analysis mainly comprises four steps
1) Sampling 2) Extraction 3) Clean-up 4) Estimation
171
Sampling : Sample should be truly representative. It should be accurate, valid,

representative and variable. Accuracy depends on the field from where it is collected. Valid
sample is one which, when selected ensures equal chances for each unit of the material in
the population being sampled. A representative sample is not only a random sample but also
that the proportion of each type of the substrate composition is identical to that of the gross
sample from which it is selected. Larger the sample replicates, greater is the validity of the
results but there is a limit to numbers of replicates. Residue status at different time intervals
i.e. at harvest, post harvest and terminal stage shall differ. All the parts of plant like leaf,
fruit, flower and seed as well as their substrates require due attention in collecting samples.
Different samples are collected in a different manner. If quick analysis is not possible due to
some unavoidable circumstances, samples should be stored in deep freezer (-20-40 oC).
Extraction : The extraction techniques to be used strongly depend upon the nature of
the matrix and of the compounds of interest. The most commonly used approach for the
extraction of analytes from aqueous samples is liquid-liquid extraction in which the sample
is distributed or partitioned between two immiscible solvent in which the analyte and matrix
have different solubility or it is based on the low value of the partition coefficient for most
organic compounds between water and organic solvents. Surface rinsing involves the keeping
of matrix to be analysed in container, solvent addition and rotating the container for 10-15
min. This method is very simple and relatively clean extracts are obtained. Blending involves
the fine chopping/ grinding of substrate and blending in the presence of solvent is carried out
for 1-2 min. This method provides better extraction due to the maximum contact of the
substrate with solvent. Large number of co-extractives along with the analytes are extracted
hence rigorous clean-up is needed. Soxhlet extraction is the most widely used method,
when organic compounds have to be extracted from dry solid materials. It is particularly
suitable when the organic material is strongly adsorbed on a porous solid matrix. The solid
sample is placed in a filter paper thimble and kept in a cylindrical container and extracted
with suitable non-polar solvent for 6-8 h.
Clean-up : Clean up involves the removal of colour and unwanted impurity/ compounds
from the extract of the analyte. Various steps/methods are involved for clean-up.
i)
Dilutions of the extract with concentrated solution of sodium chloride remove the water
soluble impurities.
ii)
Transferring the extract to another solvent will help in removing the unwanted material
form the analyte.
iii) Activated charcoal help in removing the colour pigment.

iv)
Column chromatography : It involves the adsorbent and activated charcoal packed

compactly in a glass column in an appropriate ratio in between two layers of anhydrous
sodium sulphate and eluted with appropriate solvent mixture of solvent. Different
adsorbents (Florisil, Silica gel, Hyflosupercel, Alumina (acidic, basic and neutral), Celite,
Magnesia mixture) and charcoal (Non polar) are used for clean up of pesticide residues
are polar materials.
Estimation : Chromatographic techniques such as TLC, GLC, HPLC and HPTLC have
been successfully used for residues estimations all over the world. Although every technique
has its own merits and demerits. GC has been very popular for pesticide residue analysis as
it is a dynamic method of separation and detection of micro quantities of residues, less cost
and ability to detect wider group of pesticides.
172
Chromatography
It is a process of separation of constituents of a mixture of solutes through a porous
medium by their differential movement under the influence of a moving phase. Mobile phase
is always a gas, single or mixture of two gases.
Basic instrument/gas chromatograph has following six main components (Fig.1 )
(i) Carrier Gas
(ii) Injection port
(iii) Oven/Column
(iv) Detector
(v) Recorder/Database unit.
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a gas chromatograph
Carrier Gas
Main function of carrier gas is either to provide a flame or help in burning. Mostly hydrogen
and oxygen is used for this purpose. The function of carrier gas is to carry vapours of analyte
from injection port to detector through column. The carrier gas used in GC is generally
chemically inert. Commonly used gases include nitrogen, helium, argon, and carbon dioxide.
The choice of carrier gas is often dependant upon the type of detector which is used. Most
commonly used carrier gas is nitrogen. However, hydrogen, helium and argon have also
been used.
Injection Port
Injection port is a device to introduce the sample into the carrier gas stream and the
substance to be analysed is injected in solution prepared in organic solvents like hexane or
ethyl acetate. Its efficiency is reflected in the overall efficiency of the separation procedure
and the accuracy and precision of the qualitative and quantitative results. For optimum
column efficiency, the sample should not be too large.
Oven/Column
Chromatographic column is responsible for separation of component in the sample mixture
and is called as heart of column. The shape of the column may be straight, bent or coiled.
Columns may be made of metal (copper, aluminum and steel), glass and fused silica glass.
The length of the column varies from 3-10 feet in case of glass and wide bore whereas it may
vary 10-100m in case of capillary column. Efficiency of the column is inversely proportional
to diameter of the column.
Solid Support
Purpose of the solid support is to provide large uniform inert surface area for the distribution
of liquid phase. It is important to select appropriate stationary phase of columns in optimizing
gas chromatographic separation. The stationary phase of column system is chosen after
considering polar characteristics of the analytes, their volatility range and column temperature
programme. Two main solid supports are Chromosorb- P and Chromosorb-W, the later being
more inert and good for polar compounds. Chromosorb is the registered trade mark for solid
support material for GC.
173
Liquid Phases
Liquid phases provide differential solubility to components of a substance, which help in
their separation. Liquid phases are basically polymeric high melting point silicone greases.
About 200 liquid phases are available but only six are most commonly used. Their names
are as: SE-30 or OV-101 (dimethyl silicone), OV-17 (50% phenyl methyl silicone), carbowax
20M (polyethylene glycol), DEGS (poly diethylene glycol succinate), Silar-10C (cyanopropyl
silicone) and OV-210 (trifluropropyl methyl silicone).A wide range of stationary phase is
available for WCOT capillary columns. One example is a 100 % dimethyl polysiloxane polymer
that is chemically bonded onto the interior wall of the column and provides an example of a
nonpolar stationary phase.
Function of Chromatographic Column
It helps in separation of different constituents of the substance under the influence of a
mobile phase.
Detectors
Detector is the device that senses the presence of components different from the carrier
gas and converts that information to an electrical signal. Ones choice of detector includes
selectivity and sensitivity. Not all the detectors respond to all components. Selectivity is the
ability of the detector to recognize and respond to the components of interest and sensitivity
is the concentration level, detected. Sensitivity is defined as the change in the response
with the change in detected quantity.
Following is the list of the common detectors used for pesticide residue analysis:
Thermal conductivity detector (TCD)
Flame ionization detector (FID)
Electron capture detector (ECD)
Nitrogen phosphorus detector (NPD)
Alkali flame ionization detector (AIFD)
Flame photometric detector (FPD)
Photo ionization detector (PID)
Mass selective detector (MSD
Multiresidue Methods for Estimation of Pesticide Residues
Estimation technique for single pesticide only can not be followed for detection of residues
of all categories of pesticides. Hence, this constantly expanding use of pesticides on food
crops accentuates the need for rapid, precise and sensitive method for determination of
pesticide residues of all the major groups of pesticides. In such situation, multi-residue
analytical technique can be efficiently followed for detection and estimation of multiresidues
of intra and inter class xenobiotics .
The purpose of multiresidue analyses is to determine the residues of as many pesticides
as possible within a short period of time even if the recoveries of some compounds are low.
In multiresidue methods the recoveries up to 70% are accepted. The recoveries less than
70% have to be mentioned specifically.
Complete methodology for the estimation of pesticide residues in different commodities
are given.
174
1. Estimation of Pesticide Residues in Vegetables and Fruits (Kumari et al., 2001, 2006)
Flow diagram of extraction of multiresidues from vegetable and fruits is shown below :
Extraction
Take bulk sample (1-2 kg) of vegetable/fruit
Chop it into small pieces and mix properly
After quartering take 20g representative sample
Macerate it with 4-5g anhydrous sodium sulphate
Add 100 ml acetone and extract by shaking on mechanical shaker for 1 hour
Filter the extract through 2-3 cm layer of anhydrous sodium sulphate
Concentrate the extract to 40 ml on rotary flash evaporator after adding a drop of mineral
oil
Dilute the extract 4-5 times with 10% NaCl aqueous solution
Partition it thrice with ethyl acetate (50, 30, 30 ml) in a separatory funnel by shaking
vigorously for one minute
Combine the organic (ethyl acetate) phases and filter through anhydrous sodium sulphate
Concentrate the organic phase up to 5 ml on rotary vacuum evaporator
Divide the concentrated extract into two equal parts (one for organochlorines and
synthetic pyrethroids and other for organophosphates and carbamates)
Clean-up
For Organochlorines and Synthetic Pyrethroids
Pack the glass column (60 cm x 22 mm i.d) with adsorbent mixture (5g) Florisil :
activated charcoal (5:1 w/w) in between two layers of anhydrous sodium sulphate
Tap the column gently to ensure uniform and compact packing
Prewett the column with 50 ml hexane and transfer the concentrated extract to the
column
Elute the column with 125 ml solution of ethyl acetate: hexane (3:7 v/v)
Concentrate the eluate to near dryness using rotary vacuum evaporator followed by gas
manifold evaporator after adding one drop of mineral oil
Make the final volume to 2 ml in ethyl acetate: n-hexane (3:7 v/v)
175
For Organophosphates and Carbamates

Pack the glass column (60 x 22 mm i.d.) with adsorbent mixture containing 5g silica gel (60-120
mesh): activated charcoal (5:1 w/w) in between 3-4 cm layers of anhydrous sodium sulphate
Ensure the compact packing of the column by taping gently
Prewett the column with 50-60 ml hexane and load the concentrated extract to the
column
Elute the column with 125 ml mixture of acetone: hexane (3:7 v/v)
Concentrate to near dryness using rotary flash evaporator followed by gas manifold
evaporator
Make the final volume to 2 ml in acetone: n-hexane (3:7 v/v)
2. Estimation of Pesticide Residues in Feed and Fodder (Kumari et al., 2006)
Extraction
(i)
Take 10g representative sample from coarsely powdered bulk sample.
(ii)
Add 200 ml of 1% aqueous acetonitrile.
(iii)
Extract it for 8 hours on Soxhlet extraction apparatus.
(iv)
Transfer the extract to 1L separatory funnel and dilute 4-5 times with 10% NaCl solution.
Liquid-Liquid Partitioning
(i)
Partition the extract twice with hexane (2 x 100 ml followed by partitioning twice with
dichloromethane (2 x 100 ml) by vigrous shaking for 1 min. each time.
(ii)
Combine the both organic phases i.e. of hexane and dichloromethane.
(iii)
Add a drop of mineral oil and concentrate to 10 ml on rotary flash evaporator.
Clean up
(i)
Pack the glass column (60 cm x 20 mm i.d.) compactly with adsorbent mixture 15g
silica gel (60-120 mesh, prewashed and activated at 120 0C for 1h), 0.5g activated
charcoal and 5g Florisil in between 2-3 cm layers of anhydrous sodium sulphate.
(ii)
Prewet the column with 50-60 ml hexane.
(iii) Load the concentrated extract on column and elute with 150 ml mixture of acetone :
dichloromethane (1:1 v/v) at a flow rate of 4 ml/min.
(iv) Divide the eluate into two equal portions; one for OC, SP and other for OP and carbamates.
(v)
Evaporate first portion to near dryness first on rotary flash evaporator followed by gas
manifold evaporator.
(vi) Dissolve the residues in hexane and again concentrate up to dryness.
(vii) Repeat the process three times more to remove traces of dichloromethane.
(viii) Make the final volume to 2 ml in n-hexane for the estimation of organochlorine and
synthetic pyrethroid insecticides.
(ix) Evaporate the second portion to near dryness on rotary flash evaporator/gas manifold
evaporator.
(x)
Make the final volume to 2 ml in ethyl acetate for the estimation of organophosphate
and carbamate insecticides
176
3. Estimation of Multiresidues in Food Grains
QuEChERSs Method
It is a relatively new Multi-residue method (QuEChERS) for determining pesticide residues
in different matrices. The Change in pesticide usage pattern over the past some years has
necessitated to develop residue analytical techniques capable of qualitative detection and
quantitative estimation of the multiresidues resulting from application of different xenobiotics
of intra and inter class chemicals on field crops. In 2003 the QuEChERS method for pesticide
residue analysis was introduced which provides high quality results in a fast, easy and
inexpensive approach. Follow up studies have further validated the method for >200 pesticides,
improved results for the remaining few problematic analytes and tested it in fat containing
matrices. This method has been explined in detail by Lehotay (1994).
Principle of the QuEChERS Method
The QuEChERS method known as the quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged and safe for
pesticide residues involves the extraction of the sample with acetonitrile (MeCN) containing
1% acetic acid (HAc) and simultaneous liquid-liquid partitioning formed by adding anhydrous
177
magnesium sulphate (MgSO 4) plus sodium acetate (NaAc) followed by a simple cleanup
step known as dispersive solid-phase extraction (SPE). The method is carried out by shaking
a Teflon centrifuge tube which contains 1 ml of 1% of HAc in MeCN plus 0.4 g anh. MgSO 4
and 0.1 g anh. NaAc per g sample. The tube is then centrifuged and portion of the extract is
transferred to a tube containing 50 mg primary secondary amine (PSA) sorbent to remove
fatty acids among other components plus 150 mg anh. MgSO 4 per ml extract to reduce the
remaining water in the extract. (the dispersive-SPE cleanup step). Then, the extract is
centrifuged and transferred to autosampler vials for concurrent analysis by gas
chromatography/mass spectrometery (GC/MS) and liquid chromatography/tandem mass
spectrometry (LC/MS-MS).
Advantages of QuEChERS method over the traditional multiresidue methods
The QuEChERS method has several advantages over most traditional methods of analysis
in different ways: (i)high recoveries (>85%) can be achieved for a wide polarity and volatility
range of pesticides, including notoriously difficult analytes, (ii)very accurate results are
achieved because an internal standard (I.S.) is used to correct for commodity to commodity
water content differences and volume fluctuations,(iii) high sample throughput of about 1020 pre-weighed samples in about 30-40 min is possible, (iv) solvent usage and waste is very
small and no chlorinated solvents are used, (v) a single person can perform the method
without much training or technical skill, (vi) very little glassware is used , (vi) method is
quite rugged because extract cleanup is done to remove organic acids, (vii) very little bench
space is needed, thus the method can be done in a small laboratory if needed, (viii) the
MeCN is added by dispenser to an unbreakable vessel that is immediately sealed, thus
solvent exposure to the worker is minimal, (ix)the reagent costs in the method are very
inexpensive and (x) few devices are needed to carry out sample preparation.
SUGGESTED READING
Agnihotri, N.P.,1980. Gas chromatography In: Residue Analysis of Insecticide (ed. Gupta,
D.S.), Department of Entomology, HAU, Hisar : 130-140.
Dean, J.R., 1998. Extraction Methods for Environmental Analysis. John Willey & Sons. Ltd.
West Sussex, England.
Kumari, Beena and Kathpal, T.S., 2010. Pesticides and Methods for Their Residue Estimation.
New India Publishing Agency, 101,Vikas Surya Plaza,LSC Market, CU, A0 Block, Pitam
Pura, New Delhi-110 088, xii+226 p, ISBN:978-93-80235-39-4.
Kumari, Beena, Madan, V.K. and Kathpal T. S., 2006. Monitoring of pesticide residues in
fruits. Environ. Monit. and Assess. 123 : 407-412.
Lehotay, S.J.,2004. Quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged and safe (QuEChERS) Approach
for determining pesticide residues. In : Pesticide Analysis in Methods in Biotechnology(
eds. Vidal Martinez, J.L. and Garrido Frenich,A.), Humana Press, USA
Nakamura, Y., Tonogaiy, Sekiguchi, Y., Tsumura, Y., Nishida, N., Takakura, K., Isechi, M.,
Yuasa, K., Nakamura, M., Kifune, N., Yamamoto, K., Terasewa, S., Oshima, T., Miyata,
M., Kamakura,K. and Ito, Y.: 1994, Multi-residue analysis of 48 pesticides in agricultural
products by capillary gas chromatography, J. Agric. Fd. Chem. 42 : 25082518.
Ravinderanath, B., 1989. Principles and Practice of Chromatography. Pub. Ellis Horward
Ltd. Chickester, England.
Sharma, K. K., 2007. Pesticide Residue Analysis Method. Directorate of Information and
Publications of Agriculture, New Delhi Kumari, Beena, Kumar, R. and Kathpal, T.S.,
2001.An improved multiresidue procedure for determination of 30 pesticides in vegetables.
Pestic. Res. J. 13 (1) : 32-35.
178
DIAGNOSTICS AND LOSS ASSESSMENT DUE

TO INSECT-PESTS IN SUGARCANE
Saroj Jaipal
CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Regional Research Station,
Uchani, Karnal -132001 (Haryana), India
Sugarcane crop is exposed to several depredatories during the course of its germination,
growth and maturity. Among these, insects are one of the important scourges. More than
200 species of insects have been reported on the crop in the country, out of which about two
dozen species are considered of economic importance.These are tissue borers (shoot borer,
root borer, green borer, Gurdaspur borer, top borer, stalk borer, internode borer, Plassey
borer, pink borer ), sap suckers (pyrilla, scale insect, black bug, mealybug, whitefly, aphid),
subterranean insects (termites, white grubs) and defoliators (grasshoppers, armyworm,
weevils). Some of these pests have assumed considerable significance in subtropics where,
because of availability of conducive environment for their build up, the field and factory
losses are substantially high.
In India, since sugarcane is grown under very diverse agro-climatic conditions, the crops
pest complex is also evidently dissimilar in respect of their ecology. The two markedly
distinct agro-ecological zones- the tropical peninsular zone with moderate climate and the
subtropical with extremes of weather conditions have their own set of pest fauna. In subtropics,
the main insects injurious to cane are the shoot borer ( Chilo infucatellus Snellen), top
borer ( Scirpophaga excerptalis Wlk.), stalk borer ( C. auricilius Dudgn.), Gurdaspur borer (
Acigona steniellus Hmpsn), leaf hopper ( Pyrilla perpusilla Wlk.), black bug (Cavelerius sweeti
Slater and Mugomoto ), termites, Odontotermes obesus Rambur and Microtermes obesi
Holmgren). A few insects like root borer ( Polyocha depressella Swinhoe) and whitefly
( Aleurolobus barodensis Mask.) which hitherto were minor problems in the crop now have
assumed considerable significance due to changing climatic conditions. The recent problems
in the region include grasshoppers ( Hieroglyphus banian F.) white woolly aphid ( Ceratovacuna
lanigera Zehnt.) in Western Uttar Pradesh, slug caterpillar ( Prasa bicolour Wlk.) and white
grub ( Heteronychus sp.) in Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh. The problems in tropic are
fewer than the subtropics. Here, the key pests are early shoot borer (C. infuscatellus ),
internode borer ( C. sacchariphagus indicus Kapur), white grubs ( Holotrichia serrata ,
Leucuopholis lepidophora , Heteronychus robustus , H. annulatus), scale insect, Aulacaspis
tangalensis ), mealy bug ( Saccharicoccus sacchari Cockrell).The white woolly aphid which
earlier was restricted to Nagaland and Assam as a minor pest has recently reached epidemic
proportions in Maharashtra and Karnataka. The geographical distribution of cane insect pests
as per their current status in various sugarcane growing states of India is listed in Table 1.
Sugarcane shoots or stalks, right from top to the root are liable to damage by different
pests resulting in the chewing or gnawing of the plant tissues or sucking of plant sap.
Monoculture and contiguity of the crops for years in the field (multiple ratoons) provide
conditions ideal for establishment, multiplication and spread of the pests. Ravages due to
the pests therefore, are far more severe and diverse in sugarcane than in any short duration
crop.
Moth borers are the key pests of sugarcane crop in subtropics. On the basis of symptoms
of damage, these are conveniently grouped as stem and top and shoot borers. The stem
borers, namely, stalk borer ( Chilo auricilius Ddgn.) and Gurdaspur borer ( Acigona steniellus
Hampson) are very destructive in north-eastern parts, while top borer (Scirpophaga excerptalis
179
Table 1.
Status of major sugarcane insect-pests in India
Insect pest / Species

Borers
Root borer, Polyocha
( Emalocera ) depresella
Swinhoe
Pest status
Major
Distribution
Minor
Punjab, Haryana, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, UP,

Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra, TN
Assam, Orissa
Early shoot borer, Chilo

infuscatellus Snellen
Major
All sugarcane areas
Top borer, Scirpophaga

excerptalis Walker
Major
Minor
Punjab, Haryana, UP, WB, Assam, MP, Gujrat,

Maharashtra
TN, Karnataka, AP, Kerala
Stalk /stem/tarai borer,

C. auricilius Dudgeon
Major
Minor
Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar

Nagaland, HP, WB, Orissa
Internode borer,
Major
C. sacchariphagus indicus Kapur
Minor
Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh,

Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh,
Bihar, West Bengal
Gurdaspur borer,
Acigona steniellus Hampson
Major
Minor
Punjab, Haryana West Uttar Pradesh

Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra
Pink borer, Sesamia

inferens Walker
Major
Minor
UP, Bihar, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Karnataka

Remaining sugarcane states
Plassey borer,
C. tumidicostalis Hmpson
Major
Minor
Assam, West Bengal, Bihar

Nagaland, Orissa
Green borer,
Rhaphimetopus ablutella Zell
Minor
Northern India
Sucking pests
Black bug, Cavelerius sweeti
Slater and Mugomoto
Major
Minor
Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal

Bihar, MP, Rajasthan, HP. Assam
Black bug,
Dimorphopterus gibbus F.
Major
Minor
Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh

Punjab, Bihar, Rajasthan, MP
Thrips, Baliothrips
serratus Kobus
Minor
Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar
Thrips, Stenchaetothrips
indicus Ramk. And Marg.
Sporadic
Haryana, Panjab, Uttar Pradesh
Thrips, Hoplothrips
tolerabilis Priesner
Minor
Haryana, Panjab, Uttar Pradesh
Whitefly, Aleurolobus .
barodensis Mask
Major
Minor
Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Gujrat

Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh
Whitefly, Neomuskellia
bergii Sign
Major
Minor
Bihar, TN, Karnataka, Maharashtra, MP

Haryana, Punjab, UP
180
Scale insect, Melanaspis

glomerata Green Scale insect,
Aulacaspis maudinensis Zehntner
Minor
Tamil Nadu, Haryana (in pockets), Maharashtra,

MP, Gujrat, Andhra, Karnataka, Bihar,
West Bengal and Assam
Mealy bug, Saccharicocus

sacchari Cockerell
Minor
All sugarcane areas
Mealy bug, Kiritschenkella

sacchari Green
Sporadic
Leaf hopper, Pyrilla

perpusilla Walker
Major
All sugarcane areas
White wooly aphid,

Ceratovacuna lanigera Zehnit
Major
Minor
Maharashtra, Karnataka
Western UP, Uttranchal
Subterranean pests
Termite, Microtermes
obesi Holmgren
Major
Minor
Haryana, Punjab, TN, AP, Karnataka, UP

MP
Termite, Odontotermes
obesus Rambur
Major
All sugarcane areas
White grub, Holotrichia .

consangyinea Blanch. H.
serrata Fabr. Blanch
Major
Haryana, Panjab, UP, AP, Maharashtra, TN,

Karnataka, Rajasthan, Bihar
Mealy bug, K. sacchari Green
Sporadic
Defoliators
Grass hopper, Heiroglyphus
banian F.
Minor
All sugarcane areas
Grass hopper, Poekilecerus

heiroglyphicus Klug.
Sporadic
All sugarcane areas
Army worm, Mythimna separata W.
Sporadic
All sugarcane areas
walker) and shoot borer (Chilo infucscatellus Snellen) are of wide occurrence. The root borer
( Polyocha depressella Swinhoe) has also assumed serious proportions since 1984. There
are two aspects to tissue borers problem according to the stage of crop growth. At formative
phase, very young shoots whether virgin or ratoon are subject to attack by most species,
almost in conjunction. Irrespective of the species involved, the larvae destroy the apical
meristem resulting into death of shoots. The leaf spindles first turn brown to die and
subsequently develop into characteristic dead hearts. This does not necessarily affect
crop yield because more tillers emerge which under normal physiological conditions are
able to compensate to a considerable extent for early loss of shoots. However, heavy loss of
shoots in young crop may occur in fields due to physiological stresses or shortening of
tillering phase. Beyond formative phase, when stems have already formed, significant losses
are caused by the larvae as they eat their way along the spindles and stems cutting holes
and galleries, impairing growth, destroying meristematic, transport and storage tissues,
causing breakage of canes and thereby reducing both cane yield and quality. Also wound
181
injury caused by the borers offers an opportunity for the entry of microorganisms into the
plant tissues. Microbes not only deteriorate juice quality but also augment losses.
Black bug, Cavelerius sweeti and leaf hopper, Pyrilla perpusilla are the main sap sucking
pests of sugarcane. The nymphs and adults of black bug hide in the central leaf whorl, under
the sheathing basis of leaves and in crop residue continuously feeding on the leaves which
in turn become pale yellow with brown rust irregular spots. Severe infestation causes drastic
reduction in crop growth. Pyrilla has been reported to occur sporadically in a severe form at
intervals of 5-8 years. The infested leaves besides turning pale yellow and then brown to dry
also develop sooty mould leading to arrest of photosynthetic activity and hence of sugar and
yield. Scale insect juveniles desap the parenchymatous cells reducing their size and content.
The severely infested canes show pithiness and are found to contain less juice. Aphids,
whiteflies and mealy bugs also attack sporadically the cane crop, the former occurring
particularly under unusual weather conditions.
These pests have been reported to inflict varying degree of losses in yield and sugar
depending chiefly on factors like the variety under cultivation, stage of crop attacked and the
environmental conditions. Generally speaking, the losses are in terms of reduced cane tonnage
and reduced available cane sugar per unit weight of millable canes. Further, monetary loss
due to higher cost of processing particularly of canes damaged by scale insect, mealy bug,
termites, grubs, rats and borers in the factory has also been observed. The effects of pest
damage on recoverable sugar contents of the cane have been quoted quite often. However,
the actual assessment of damages and losses has not been feasible mainly because of
errors arising from different sampling as well as milling techniques. Moreover, the available
figures generally pertain to losses due to individual pests, a situation quite arbitrary to
natural conditions where multiple infestations are of common occurrence. A brief resume of
losses in cane yield and sugar recovery over different periods is as under :A positive correlation between shoot borer incidence and intensity and a negative one
between incidence and yield as well as intensity and yield have been established (Avasthy,
1968). In top borer infestation, as the crop grows, the mortality of shoots/canes decreases
(Agarwal and Siddiqi, 1964). No correlation has been observed between borer infestation
and the actual damage (Rajani, 1960; Siddiqi, 1960). In Punjab 20 (Kalra, 1960a, b) to 30
per cent (Rajani, 1960) loss has been reported. The yield loss is highest due to the third
brood (Kalra and Chaudhary, 1964a). Top borer infestation induces early maturity in crops
more than 9 months old and improves quality (David and Ranganathan, 1960; Kalra and
Chaudhary, 1964a) which however shows marked deterioration subsequently. The loss in
quality is highest due to the third brood. The loss in sugar recovery varies from 0.2-4.1 units
(Rajani, 1960; Siddiqi, 1960; Venkataraman, 1961; Gupta et al .,1965). Agarwal (1964b)
observed the damage in a cane due to internode borer can go up to 22.5 cm. He reported
10.7 per cent loss in weight based on the study in 30 varieties. The reduction in sucrose
content is variable depending on the variety, age of the crop and intensity of attack (David
and Ranganathan, 1960; Agarwal, 1964b). A maximum reduction of 1.12 per cent in recovery
in Co 449 has been reported when planting was done during special season (David and
Ananthanarayana, 1963). Significant correlations have been reported between borer incidence
and intensity, larval population and intensity and incidence, intensity and loss in cane yield
(Avasthy and Krishnamurthy, 1968). Gurdaspur borer damages usually 15-20 per cent of the
crop which sometimes may be even as high as 40-50 per cent (Kalra, 1963 a,b). Gupta et al .
(1966) worked out the loss caused by second, third and fourth brood of root borer. Teotia et
al. (1963) reported 30-60 per cent destruction of buds due to termite attack, while Avasthy
(1967b) reported it to be 40 per cent which results in a yield loss of 33 per cent.
182
Table 2. A profile of losses in cane sugar and recovery

Pests
Losses in cane sugar and recovery
Source
Shoot borer
0.6 tonnes sugar per hectare0.35 tonnes in

sugar/ 5% incidence and0.25 tonnes in sugar/
1% intensity
Khan & Krishnamurthy (1956)

Avasthy(1968)
Top borer
0.2 to 4.1 units in sugar recovery7q/ha under

heavy attack21.5%(third brood),12% ( fourth
brood) , 8 % (fifth brood) as of healthy
Chaudhary (1983)
Kalra & Chaudhary (1964)
Kalra (1991), Jaipal (1992)
Stalk borer
1.7 to 3.7 units at 29% infestation 1.95 units

sugar recovery 5.3 to 20% in sucrose 0.64%
in juice extraction and 0.56%or 0.08 unit/1.0%
intensity0.07% in brix and 0.1 unit in pol% at
every unit increase in intensity
Gupta and Singh (1971)

Kulshreshtha & Avasthy (1957)
Singh et al . (1973)
Bhardwaj et al . (1980)
Varma(1984)
Gurdaspur borer
29% in sucrose with an increase of 84% in

glucoseUpto74%in sugar recovery
Singh et al .(1957)
Garg and Chaudhary (1979)
Root borer
0.3 unit loss of sucrose in U.P.and 2.9% in

Bihar7.9%in CCS over healthy and 78.7%
in CCS in wilted canes
Gupta and Chaudhary (1970)

Jaipal (unpublished)
Pyrilla
2 to34% in sucrose, 0.2 to 5 units in recovery

and 2.2 to 4.4 % in jaggery 10-31% in ratoon,
24-60% in autumn , upto15% in plant at high
infestation level
Gupta(1948)
Jaipal et al . (1993)
White fly
30-40% in sucrose and 20-25% in total solid,

Singh et al .(1956)
1.98% in juice sucrose of plant crop,1.44, 1.66, Siddiqi and Sexana (1960)
and 2.69% in manured and 2.52, 2.46,and 3.33%
in unmanured first, second and third ratoon crop
1.21, 2.71 and 2.81 units in recovery in light ,
medium and heavily infested
Black bug
2-56% reduction in growth
Scale insect
0.3- 42 % in juice extraction 44% in sucrose and Moholkar et al. (1976)

35% in CCS poor quality jaggery with 6% losses Prabhakar Rao et al. (1976)
42-58% (highly infested),18-29% (moderate
Jaipal (1986)
infestation), upto 9% in lightly infested
Mealy bug
24%in sucrose and 16% in brix
Kalra and Sidhu(1964)
Rats
23 kg /ha in recovery0.68 unit in sugar recovery
Gupta et al. (1968)

Bindra and Sagar (1968)
Termite
4.5% in sugar, 5-13 kg of sugar/q
Agarwala (1955)
Gupta and Singh (1971)
Grasshopper
0.4-1.2 units in sugar recovery
Jaipal (1997)
Jaipal (1991)
183
Due to scale insect infestation shriveling of cane and stunting of growth is reported by
Agarwal (1960), Raja Rao and Bhaskar Rao (1960) and Tembhekar (1965). Tembhekar (1965)
observed yellowish streaks on leaves due to the feeding of nymphs. Use of infested setts
for planting hampers germination upto 20 per cent (Agarwal, 1960). Reduction in cane
weight, which is directly related to degree of infestation, is 13 per cent in Co 740 in Tamil
Nadu (Agarwal, 1960), 63.4 in Co775 at Bardoli in Gujarat (Tembhekar, 1965), 6-15.2 at
Walchandnagar in Maharashtra (Deshpande 1969), 2.9 in Co 740 in adsali crop and 3-14 in
pre seasonal planted crop (Phadke et al. , 1969). The reduction in sucrose, brix and purity
is reported to be 42, 28 and 26 per cent respectively (Agarwal, 1960). In Co 775, the purity
of juice declines from 89.8 to 61.4 per cent (Tembhekar, 1965). The loss is more in special
season crop than in main season crop (Raja Rao and Bhaskar Rao, 1960). Studies by Kalra
and Sidhu (1964) have shown that in canes severely infested by mealy bugs, the sucrose
content decreases by 24.1 per cent, while the reduction in brix is 16.2 per cent.
Pyrilla infestation causes serious losses in north India. During 1968-69 epidemic, the
reduction in recovery was noted to the extent of 50 per cent. In some factories in western
Uttar Pradesh, the sugar recovery was even below 5 per cent (Agarwal, 1969a). Gupta and
Gupta (1969) estimated the total loss in sugar production to be 60,000 tonnes, equivalent to
a monetary loss of ten crores in eastern Uttar Pradesh alone. According to Saxena (1969)
the canes affected by Pyrilla pose several problems for milling.
In Uttar Pradesh, Gupta et al. (1968b) estimated the loss in yield due to rats to be 532
kg/ha and loss in sugar recovery to be 3 kg/ha. Bindra and Prem Sagar (1968) found that in
Punjab, rat damage is highly variable across locations, ranging from nil/negligible to heavy
damage.
Studies carried out at Anakapalle (Subha Rao, 1972) showed that when the incidence of
dead hearts by shoot borer did not exceed 22 per cent, the varieties were able to overcome
the infestation resulting in no apparent reduction in the number of shoots or weight of clumps
at harvest provided the mother shoots were healthy. The study of Seshagiri Rao and
Krishnamurthy (1973) has revealed the economic threshold level of shoot borer to be 15 per
cent. The variation in yield loss due to top borer attack is attributed to variety and stage of
the crop attacked (Agarwal et al., 1974). The yield loss is highest due to the third brood
(Kalra and Prasad, 1978). In the case of internode borer attack, 85 per cent fresh attack is
found in the top five immature internodes. The number of internodes bored per cane has
been observed to vary from 1.6 in Co 453 to 4.0 in Co 6304 (David, 1979). In three factory
areas in Tamil Nadu, viz. Sakthi Nagar, Nellikuppam and Pettavaithalai, the actual loss
amounted to 19.0, 16.3 and 8.6 tonnes/ha respectively, when mean per cent canes damaged
was 40.0, 42.4 and 55.4 respectively (David et al ., 1979).
In stalk borer, Singh et al., (1973) observed a direct correlation between incidence and
loss in yield. They also observed 31.8 per cent loss in yield and 5.3 20.4 per cent in
sucrose. A positive correlation was observed between intensity of infestation and per cent
loss in yield, juice extraction and sugar recovery (Bhardwaj et al., 1980). Loss in sugar
recovery due to Gurdaspur borer infestation may be as high as 74 per cent in areas severely
infested by the borer (Garg and Chaudhary 1979b). In Karnataka, the yield loss due to
whitegrubs ( H.serrata ) is as high as 100 per cent (Veeresh, 1974) in some heavily infested
fields.
Planting setts infested with scale insect reduced germination by 11.3 per cent in Co 740
to 21.4 per cent in Co 419 (Thontadarya and Govindan, 1976). The reduction in cane height
184
varied from 5.5 per cent in Co 419 (Sathiamoorthy and Muthukrishnan, 1978) to 29.0 per
cent (Moholkar et al ., 1973). The reduction in girth of canes ranges from 2.8 12.1 per cent
(Sithanantham et al ., 1974b) and it may go as high as 19.1 per cent (Sathiamoorthy and
Muthukrishnan, 1978). The loss in cane yield varied from 2 to 54.6 per cent in different
varieties in different states (Moholkar and Ranadive, 1973; Sithanantham et al.,1974b;
Seshagiri Rao, 1975, Bhaskara Rao et al., 1976; Sathiamoorthy and Muthukrishnan, 1978).
A loss in yield to the tune of 25 30 tonnes/ha at Shakarnagar, Andhra Pradesh, amounted
to a monetary loss of Rs.4500 5400 (Srinivasamurthy and Subba Rao, 1976). The degree
of losses also seems to be influenced by soil type Thontadarya and Govindan, 1976), seasons
of planting (Moholkar et al .,1976) and varieties (Sithanantham et al.,1974a; Moholkar et
al., 1976). The constant desapping of canes results in the reduction of juice content from
0.3 per cent (Moholkar et al., 1976) to as high as 41.4 per cent (Prabhakara Rao et al .,
1976). In Tamil Nadu, 5.9 to 7.2 per cent reduction in sucrose and 8.5 to 15.0 per cent
reduction in CCS in varieties Co 419 and Co 458 are reported (Sithanantham et al.,1974b).
According to Seshagiri Rao (1975) the loss in sucrose, purity and brix in Co 997 is 44.9,
16.7 and 33.0 per cent while Bhaskara Rao et al. (1976) estimate it to be 5.7, 6.6 and 5.1
units respectively in Co 527 in Andhra Pradesh. In Uttar Pradesh the sugar recovery is
reduced by 1.7, 2.3, 3.3 and 9.1 units under varying levels of scale insect infestation (Shukla
and Trupathi, 1980). The syrup prepared from the juice of scale insect infested canes does
not set properly (Prabhakara Rao et al .,1976). According to Moholkar and Ranadive (1973)
there is reduction in gur production and the jaggery produced is dark in colour with high
reducing sugars.
By postal survey, Hopf et al. (1976) obtained yield loss estimates due to rats. It was
2.2 per cent in Punjab, 2 to 5 per cent in Karnataka and light loss in Tamil Nadu, Srivastava
(1975) reported 16.7 per cent loss due to rodents. Studies on qualitative and quantitative
losses caused by the top borer, S.excerptalis has shown that the third brood of the pest in
autumn season caused maximum loss (Gupta et al ., 1993; Duhra and Sharma, 1993). Pink
mealy bug S.sacchari decreased the sucrose and sugar content of the cane and its purity
without affecting the volume of the cane juice significantly (Aliqui and Murad, 1992).
Singla and Duhra (1991) proposed a sampling a plan for estimating damage by
E. depressella (40 shoots), C. infuscatellus (30-40 shoots), S. excerptalis (40 canes) and
C. auricilius (30 40 canes). Upadhyay and Vaidya (1993) estimated 36.5 to 42.9 per cent
infestation due to M. glomerata causing 16.6 to 20.6 per cent loss in cane weight. Root
borer, E.depressella followed a negative binomial distribution (Sardana, 1994) under field
conditions. Depending upon the degree of infestation by pyrilla which is influenced by the
prevailing climatic conditions (Varma and Tanwar, 1993), varieties suffered varying level of
losses in sugar recovery (Jaipal et al .,1993).
SUGGESTED READING
David, H.; Easwaramoorthy, S. and Jayanthi, R. (eds.). Sugarcane Entomology In India.
Sugarcane Breeding Institute, (Indian Council of Agricultural Research), Coimbatore
641 007, 1986.
Singh, S. B.; Rao, G. P. and Easwaramoorthy, S. (eds.). Sugarcane Crop Management . Sci
Tech Publishing Llc. 9207, Country Creek Drive, Houston, Texas-77036 (USA).
185

DUE TO INSECT-PESTS IN CEREAL CROPS
Ombir
CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 004
Till recently, wheat in India was considered relatively free from ravages of insect pests in
field, except termite damage under rainfed conditions. However, the changes that have
occurred in wheat production system over the past three decades and adoption of intensive
system have markedly altered the situation. The changes in the crop field environment have
been conducive for development and multiplication of certain insect species which are cause
damage to wheat crop.
Shoot fly, Atherigona naqvii
Shoot fly has emerged as an important and regular pest of late sown wheat crop since
the adoption of semi-dwarf varieties. The fly is about 3 mm in body length and dark gray in
colour. Its prevalence has been reported from Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar
Pradesh, Panjab and Haryana. Infestation can occur during all crop growth stages but damage
to young seedling and tillers is most important. The newly hatched maggots creep into the
leaf sheaths of the tillers and cut the central growing shoots causing dead hearts. In case of
severe infestation, the plant assumes bushy appearance with large number of tillers.
Wheat aphid, Sitobion avenae
Wheat aphid attacks wheat, barley, oats, etc., and is widely distributed in India. The
aphid is a soft-bodied, lime-green colour insect with a darker green stripe on its back. It
sucks sap from the ears and tender leaves, causing decrease in yield of the crop. The
damage is particularly severe in years of cloudy weather. Yield losses are high when
infestation occurs at booting to milky dough stage, particularly where aphids are colonising
the flag leaf, stem and ear. Heavy infestations can cause a reduction of the number of grains
per ear; generally, the distal grains in the head fail to fill and thus a noticeable reduction of
the yield. Infestations at milky dough stage in which aphids colonise on leaves, particularly
lower in the canopy, tend to result in grain with reduced protein rather than a loss in yield.
Aphids intercept the nitrogen being relocated from leaves to the filling grain.
Ghujia weevil , Tanymecus indicus
Weevils are earthen grey in colure and cannot fly.
The adults feed on leaves and tender shoots of the plants. The damage is caused by the
adult weevils only and they cut the germinating seedling at ground levels and often crop has
to be resown.
Stem borer , Sesamia inferens
Stem borer are lay eggs in clusters inside the leaf-sheaths. The larvae of stem borer
feed on leaf sheath for about a week and then bore inside the stem causing dead-hearts at
the vegetative and reproductive phases and white ears at ripening, which could be easily
pulled out.
186
Cutworms, Agrotis spp.

Cutworms are soil inhabiting pests of mainly young plants. Larvae usually feed at night
and seek refuge in the soil by day. They normally attack seedling plants by cutting through
their stems near ground level but they may also feed on the foliage of older plants. Most
damage is done between germination and tillering. Damage usually shows up as general
patchiness or as distinct bare areas in a very short time. In severe infestation, whole field is
covered with cut plant necessitating resowing. The larvae mature in about four weeks but in
cooler conditions this may be much longer.
Armyworm, Mythimna separata
The armyworm typically becomes a pest of wheat at ears. It prefers green tissue, and
ordinarily feeds first on the tender leaves, then on the awns and immature grains.
The freshly emerged larvae spin threads from which they suspend themselves in the air
and then with the help of air currents reach from one plant to another. In the early stages,
they feed on tender leaves in the central whorl of the plant. The larvae are found in the
cracks of soil and hide during the day but feed during night or early morning. In the case of
a severe attack by the armyworms, whole leaves, including the mid-rib, are consumed and
field looks as if grazed by cattle. The pest may also eat away ears, including the awns and
immature grains. The most obvious damage to wheat is head clipping, when caterpillars
chew completely through the stem and the head falls off the plant. During the vegetative
growth phase, plants can tolerate considerable leaf feeding. Leaves may look tattered from
the eaten-out leaf margins. Faecal pellets around the base of plants are another indication
of armyworm infestation. The most serious armyworm damage in cereal crops occurs when
larvae feed on the upper flag leaf and stem node as the crop matures. Larvae target the stem
node as the leaves become dry and unpalatable, and the stem is often the last part of the
plant to dry. Head cutting begins at this time.
Surface grasshopper , Chrotogonus trachypterus
Adults are about 20 mm long, flattened the upper surface of a dark earthen colour,
roughened with spots of white or yellow and the lower surface white.
Both nymphs and adults do the damage by feeding on leaves and cutting seedling.
Thrips
Adults are slender, yellowish brown and measure about 1mm in length. Males wingless,
whereas females have long narrow strap- like wings. The eggs are laid in the tissues of
tender foliage and the development occurs within the leaf -sheath and nymphs and adults
feed on the leaves. The damage is caused by both nymphs and adults by sucking sap from
the tender leaves, causing characteristic whitish streaks.
Helicoverpa armigera is frequently found in winter cereals but usually numbers are too
low to warrant control. Occasionally, however, its number may be sufficient to cause economic
damage. Helicoverpa larvae in cereals (barley, wheat, triticale, oats and maize) tend to feed
on the exposed tips of developing grains. Rather than totally consuming a low number or
187
whole grains, they damage a larger number of grains, thus increasing the potential losses.
Most of the feeding will be during the final two instars.
Stem borer, Chilo partellus
This is the most serious pest of maize and its incidence has been reported up to 70 per
cent. It is many times more harmful pest than all the rest collectively. The maize borer
attacks every part of maize plant except roots. Newly hatched larvae first scrap the central
leaves of the whorl and soon tunnel into the stem through the whorl. The new emerging
leaves of the whorl show small pin holes and scraped leaf injury. Grown up larvae produce
bigger holes in the whorl leaves. The severe attack results in drying of central whorl of the
plant, which is known as dead heart. The older larvae may also enter the stem directly. Such
dead-hearts with plants do not show usual leaf injury symptoms. The plants, showing deadhearts, remain stunted in growth, produce tillers and do not bear any ears. The larvae also
damage the emerging tassels, silks and developing grains in the ears.
Cutworm, Agrotis spp.
Cutworms are larvae of noctuid moths. The typical cutworm found attacking the corn has
a plump, curled-up appearance. The colour of larvae varies with the species from the light
glassy to a greyish black or brown. Larvae feed at night and their presence in the soil is
indicated by plants cut off at or below the surface of the ground. This is generally observed
during rabi season in Bihar and Southern Peninsula. It cuts the emerging seedlings at the
base of the shoot. This results in complete loss of the plant.
Armyworm Mythimna separata
The full grown caterpillar is stout up to about 4 cm long, dusky brown in color with pale
and brown longitudinal stripes, the dorsolateral stripes being broken into spots. The outbreak
of this pest occurs suddenly and farmers generally notice it after it has already caused
considerable damage. The caterpillars generally feed at night and hide in whorls of plants
during daytime. The caterpillars march from field to field and voraciously feed on foliage.
They appear after heavy rains or early floods.
Corn leaf aphid, Rhopalosiphum maidis
The corn leaf aphid is widely distributed and is occasionally found in large numbers on
corn. The corn leaf aphid is a small, bluish-green aphid. The aphids may be found in clusters
on leaves and down in the whorl. Nymphs and adults suck the sap from the leaves and
shoots, exude honeydew, on which a sooty mold grows, giving the leaves a black appearance
and interfering with photosynthesis. Infected plants may become stunted and turn reddish
as they mature. If young plants infected they seldom produce ears. Ears and shoots are
also infested and seed set may be affected.
Shoot fly, Atherigona soccata , A.naqvii
It is a very serious pest of maize in South India but also severally damages spring and
summer maize crop in North India. The attack is maximum when the crop is in seedling
stage. The tiny maggots creep down under the leaf sheaths till they reach the base of the
seedlings. After this they cut the growing point or central shoot which results in the formation
of characteristic dead hearts.
188
Assessment of losses
The following methods have been suggested on the basis of various techniques developed
so far for estimating the losses caused by insect pests.
i)
Mechanical Protection of the crop from pest damage : Efforts may be made
to grow the crop under cages of various material to keep out the pest, and then to
compare the crop yield with that obtained from infested crop grown under infested
conditions.
ii)
Chemical protection of crop from the pests under investigation : The

experimental crop may be protected by applying recommended insecticides
schedule, and the yield is compared with that under normal insect infestation.
This technique is widely used for estimating the losses caused by insect pests.
Percent avoidable loss+ y-y/yx100
Where, y and y are the mean yields in the protected and unprotected plots,
respectively.
iii)
Comparison of the yield in field having different degrees of pest infestation:

Under this method different degrees of pest infestation is to be maintained by
applying the insecticide at various intervals and then to work out yield losses.
SUGGESTED READING
Aggarwal, S. Insect Pest of Cereals and their Management . Published by Oxford Book
Company.
Corn Insect Pest-A Diagnostic guide . Published by MU Extension, University of Missouri,

Colombia.
Wheat disease and Pests: a Guide of Field Identification. Published by International Maize
and Wheat Improvement Centre.
189

LOSSES DUE TO INSECT-PESTS IN STORED GRAINS
S. S. Sharma
The stored grains, whether in homes, farms or warehouses are prone to attack of various
types of pests which not only result in quantity loss but in quality also. In storage, loss to
the extent of approximately 9.33 per cent has been estimated to occur because of various
agents. Prior to their management the knowledge related to their identification, nature of
damage, insect infestation and the amount of loss caused the particular pest is essential.
The available information on the above aspects is summarized below:
Rice weevil : Sitophilus oryzae ( Linnaeus), Sitophilus granarius
F : Curculionidae
O : Coleoptera
The weevil is reddish brown, chocolate to almost black in colour, having a characteristic
beak or snout.. The legless fleshy and curved larva remains in grains Pupation takes place
inside the grain. Adult comes out leaving a circular hole on the grain. Both the adults and
larvae damage the grains. The grains become hollow. The heating of grain takes place due
to severe infestation of this pest.
Lesser Grain Borer : Rhyzopertha dominica (Fabricius) Bostrychidae : Coleoptera
The adult beetle is blackish brown There is a prominent constriction between prothorax
and elytra and the head is deflexed downwards, which seems to be almost hidden from the
dorsal view. The larvae are legged, can crawl, feed on grains and enter the grains after the
third instar. The pupation within the grain or grain dust. Both the adults and grubs cause
damage to the grains, which are reduced to mere shells. The damaged kernels remain
engulfed in a film of waste flour. The adults are good flier and produce a considerable amount
of frass, which serves as a nourishment for the young ones until they are ready to bore into
the grain.
Larger Grain Borer, Prostephanus truncatus (Fabricius) F : Bostrychidae O : Coleoptera
It is found in maize growing areas of America and Africa. Larva feeds in maize grains and
can fly and attacks other food stuffs.
Khapra beetle : Trogoderma granarium Everts Dermestidae : Coleoptera
Adults are short lived and harmless. Grubs are straw coloured, hairy with dark brown
bands on each segment and a typical posterior tuft forming a tail of long hairs, which move
actively and freely. They damage the grains starting from the germ portion, surface scratching
and devour the grains and usually confined to the upper 50 mm layer of the grains. In severe
infestation they completely destroy the grains, reducing them to a mere frass. Unhygienic
conditions created by the cast skins, frass and hairs reduce marketability Crowding of
larvae lead to unhygienic conditions in warehouses.
Rusty grain beetle, Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Steph.) , Cryptolestes pusillus (Schonherr),
Red rust grain beetle, Laemophloeus pusillus F : Cucujidae O : Coleoptera
The adult is a shiny reddish brown beetle, moves rapidly in warm grain. Normally secondary
pest but also attacks damaged whole grains. The larvae and adults feed on the germ and
endosperm. Heavy infestations of the insects also contribute to other damage by causing
the grain to heat and spoil, and by spreading fungal spores in the stored grain.
190
Saw toothed grain beetle ( Oryzaephilus surinamensis ),

Merchant grain beetle ( Oryzaephilus mercator )
F : Silvanidae
O : Coleoptera
Larva develops rapidly, particularly at high moisture contents (more than 14%). On wheatfeed, the larva of O. mercator grows more slowly than that of O. surinamensis and was more
sensitive to low humidities. Adult is long lived can survive up to three years. It is a
cosmopolitan pest and important pest of many stored products, secondary pest of whole
grains: Adults and larvae cause roughing of grain surface and off colour in grains, leads to
broken of grains and heating of grains. Feeds on rice, wheat, maize, cereal products, oil
seeds and dry fruits. Both species can increase rapidly in the tropics. O. surinamensis is a
pest because it can survive in large numbers in the fabric of warehouses and multiply rapidly
when warm or actively heating produce becomes available.
Flat Grain beetle, Latheticus oryzea Waterhouse F : Tenebrionidae
O : Coleoptera
Small yellowish brown beetle with flat slender body with parallel sides. Adults live up to
six months. Longheaded Flour Beetle is a pest of grain products in tropical and sub-tropical
regions of the world but minor pest of wheat, barley, corn, flour, cereals, oatmeal, and also
beans. Adults and larvae feed on stored products. It is an important pest of milled rice,
maize, wheat, broken grains, different flours or groundnut Larva feeds on germ portion or on
dead insects, adults are scavenger, cause heating in grains.
Red rust flour beetle : Tribolium castaneum ( Herbst), Tribolium confusum
Tenebrionidae : Coleoptera
Beetle is oblong, brown. Both the larva and adult damage the broken grains, milled
products, flour and the germ portion of the healthy seeds. Heavy infestation in flour causes
stinking odour, which adversely affects the quality.
Gram dhora ( Bruchus chinensis ) and pulse dhora (moong Dhora) Callosobruchus
maculatus (Linnaeus) Bruchidae : Coleoptera
The beetle is small, squat, active, long conspicuous, serrated antennae with brownish
grey colour and elevated ivory like spots near the middle of the dorsal side. Elytra dont
cover the abdomen completely.Grub just after hatching penetrates into the grain and completesfull life inside it and damages the grain kernel by making cavities in them. It is fleshy,
curved, white, creamy in colour with black mouthparts. Pupation in the pupal cell made
under the seed coat. Adults are short lived and dont feed on stored products at all.
Dried bean beetle ( Acanthoscelides obtectus Say)
F : Bruchidae
O : Coleoptera
Just after hatching the young grub enters into the pulse grain, feeds inside and forms a
characteristic window before pupation to form an exit hole for adult emergence. Grub is the
only damaging stage damage.
Cigarette beetle : Lasioderma serricorne Fabricius Anobiidae : Coleoptera
The light brown shinning round beetle has its thorax and head bent downward, which
gives a humped appearance. The elytra have minute hairs on them. grubs and pupae are
creamy white. Both beetles and grubs are harmful, feed on stored tobacco, cigarettes, ginger,
turmeric and chilies, etc. by making holes in them.
Angoumois grain moth : Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier) Gelechidae : Lepidoptera
Moth is dirty yellowish brown with wings completely folded over back in a sloping manner.
Hind wings with sharp pointing apical end and bearing heavy fringe of bristles that leaves
small specks on window pans and walls. Larva is white in colour with yellow head. Only the
larvae cause damage by feeding on the grains,bores into the grain and feeds on its contents.
The damaged grains are hollowed. Attacks paddy, maize, jowar, barley and wheat. As the
191
larva grows, it extends the hole, which partly gets filled with pellets of excreta. When the
infestation is high, the upper layer is most severely infested.
Rice moth : Corcyra cephalonica (Stainton) Pyrallidae : Lepidoptera
The spot free uniformly pale buff brown coloured adult is the biggest amongst foodgrain
infesting moths. Larva feeds on grains, pollutes the food grains with frass, moults and dense
webbing, pollutes with frass, moults, kernels are bound into lumps.
Meal moth , Ephestia kuhniella Walker
F : Pyralidae
O : Lepidoptera
It is a pest of temperate area; attacks cereal products particularly flour; larva favours
flour dust and forms heavy webbing which can even choke the machinery.
Warehouse Cocoa Tobacco moth , (Ephestia cautella )
It is a pest of temperate area; attacks raw and processed products of peanuts, kernels
of tree beans ,stored grain,, dried fruit, wheat, rice, maize, jowar, groundnut, spices.
Larva move to and over the produce feeding and spinnig threads and forming the web.
Heavy web formation leads to clogging in mill
Indian meal moth, Plodia interpunctella Huebn.
F : Phycitidae
O : Lepidoptera
Mature larvae often wander away from the food source in search of pupation sites. Adult
are short lived. Larva damages the grains preferably the germ portion, and contaminate the
grains with excretement, cast skins, webbing, dead individuals, cocoon.
Methods of detection of insect infestation in stored grains
a)
b)
Detection of visible infestation

1. Sieving : By sieving the grains with 10-16 mesh sieve the adult beetles present in
grains can be collected below the sieve.
2. Agitation of sacks : Bags of grains are thrown up and downwards several times
thus adult beetle can be collected.
3. Disturbance of stacks or bulk surfaces : A long stick can be moved over and
vertical fashion on stack and the fallen adult beetles can be collected.
4. The feel of grain in bulk : Through walking over the bulk of grains if a hot spot is
there or fairly solid patch means problem.
5. Probe Trap : Trap is kept vertically in the grains with top cap at grain level, the
insect will enter in it through holes and will be collected in the trapping tube.
6. Pit fall trap : This trap can be placed in metal bean or small container or utensil
used for storage of grains beetles are trapped in this pit fall trap.
7. Light trap for grain storage godowns : The UV light traps and ultra violet traps
are used to attract the beetles.
8. Sticky traps : Fly paper type or sticky trap are commonly used in the storage. The
adults get stick on the sticky material.
9. Artificial crevices 10. Dead insects:
11. Grain temperature and moisture contents : Hot spots are the result of heavy
insect infestations.
12. White spots : White spots outside the grain bags and molts of the larvae also
indicate the insect infestation.
Detection of hidden infestation :
a) Use of acid infestation
b) Gentian violet and Berbeine sulphate
c) Floatation or density method
192
DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS OF INSECT-PESTS' DAMAGE IN STORED GRAINS
Rice weevil in wheat
Angoumois grain moth on

maize
Lesser grain borer
Khapra in wheat
Cigarette beetle in coriander
Rust red flour beetle
Pulse beetle in rajmash
Pulse beetle in chickpea and

pea
d)
e)
f)
h)
i)
Gelatinization method
Cracking floatation method
Spectrophotometric analysis g) Ninhydrin colour reaction
Carbondioxide determination method
X-Ray radiographic method
Method of loss assessment

Prior to the determination of losses in grains due to insects the following steps need to
be undertaken:
Step-1
Sieving of grains : To make the sample free from insects dusts it should be first
winnowed and sieved through the normal grain sieve.
Step-II Determination of original grain condition : Determination of baseline condition

of grain is essential. The moisture should be estimated in a particular grain because
the volume and weight can change with the varying degree of moisture or take a
visibly undamaged/healthy grain sample replicated thrice, put them in jar covered
with muslin for four weeks. If there is no damage calculate the value and it there is
damage, take the samples with 5% or less damaged kernels.
Step-III Preparation of baseline determination : Take 5 kg grain sample from each lot,
sieve it. Determine the moisture content, dry the sample in shallow layer with
warm and dry air over it or in an oven below 35c and when the moisture goes
below 10%, place it in sealed container to cool down and measure the accurate
moisture content or place a small known weight sample in oven and check the
weight loss after drying.
QUANTITATIVE LOSS DETERMINATION :
There are four methods for determination of losses to grains.
1. Standard volume/mass method : This technique relies on the assumption that the
volume occupied by the same number of damaged or non damaged grains will be identical,
but the mass of this standard volume will decrease as the level of damage increases. The
relationship between the dry mass and the moisture content of the standard volume of non
damaged grain at the time of storing is plotted on a graph. The dry mass of standard volumes
of grain from later samples can then be compared to that of the initial sample, and the
percentage mass loss calculated.
D1-DX
Per cent dry mass loss = x 100
D1
Where
D1 = Dry mass of standard volume at the beginning of the experiment (read from the
graph using the same moisture content as that obtained for DX).
DX = Dry mass on occasion X
2. Modified standard volume/weight method
Procedure : To use this method an artificial baseline is prepared by selecting healthy
samples from the grain in the store at the time of determination. The loss is the difference in
weight (%age) between the undamaged and damaged sample. Here the moisture content of
damaged and undamaged is the same.
Percent grain loss in wt = Wt. of undamaged grain weight of damaged grains x 100
Wt. of undamaged grains
193
3. Thousand-grain mass (TGM) method : Here a sample taken when the grains are placed
in store is weighed, the number of grains is counted and their moisture content is determined.
The dry mass of 1000 grains is obtained by the following formula.
1000 x m x (100-H)
Thousand-grain mass TGM =
N x 100
Where:
m = wet mass of the working sample, H= Percentage moisture content of the grain and
N= number of grains in the working sample.
M1-MX
Per cent dry mass loss = x 100
M1
where,
M1= TGM of the grains at the beginning of the study and MX= TGM of the grain on
occasion X.
4. Count and weigh method
Procedure : Take a grain sample from the store. Separate the damaged and undamaged
grains count and weight the damaged undamaged grain separately and put the data in the
following formula.
(Dry mass of nondamaged grains x number of damaged grains)
(Dry mass of damaged grains x number of nondamaged grains)
Percent weight loss = x 100
Dry mass of nondamaged grains (number of damaged grains +
number of nondamaged grains)
Sample size should be 100-1000 grains.
Drawback : Hidden infestation results in an underestimation of loss and heavily infested
grains or broken grains lead to counting error.
POST HARVEST LOSSES IN GRAINS
During storage both quantitative and qualitative losses occur due to insects, rodents,
and microorganisms. A large number of insect pests are associated with stored grains which
are directly related to geographical and climatic conditions. There are different estimates on
post harvest losses in food. Almost all the insect species may destroy 10.0 - 15.0 % of grain
and contaminate with undesirable odour. They also help in transportation of fungi (Sinha and
Sinha, 1990). According to Word Bank report 1999, post harvest losses of food grains in
India amount to be 12-16 metric tonns of food grains each year costing 500-600 crores.
Losses due to insect s in storage is 70 kg/ton (7%) (Anonymous, 2001).
Farmers retain about 60-70% of their produce for the purpose of home consumption and
for sale. The loss of grains stored as seed and future food of India is to the tone of 7-8% (Rs
600-700 crores). As per the Directorate of Marketing and Inspection, the estimated total
post harvest losses in food grains at producer level has been 1.79 % and 10% of wheat
production in colossal which works out to Rs 35 million. In other report the post harvest loss
of wheat have been estimated to the tone of 8% of the total production. According to the
Report of the Committee on Post Harvest Losses of Food Grains in India, Ministry of Food
and Agriculture, Govt of India (1971). the losses at different levels as at threshing 1.0 %,
transportation 0.5 %, rodents 2.5 %, birds 0.5 %, insects 3.0 % and moisture 0.5% and
194
total loss is 8.0 %. In other report of FAO, the major loss by biotic and abiotic factors is
10% and the major loss is done by two internal feeders i.e. rice weevil and grain borer which
are major pests of rice, wheat and millets (Chap and Dyte, 1977). Rice weevil alone causes
loss of 61.3% of sorghum grains (Venkat Rao et al., 1958). However, in sorghum grain
weight losses after 180 days of storage was I2.08 - 20.01 %. This insect feeding on rice
grains causes 5-25% weight loss and 20-50 % loss on seed viability in paddy (Anand Parkash
and Rao, 2001). In India, estimated loss due to stored pests are about 10.0% (Dhuri, 2006).
Loss in maize in Karnataka during various factors in storage is 21.86%.
SUGGESTED READING
Anonymous, 2001. Manual on Grain Storage at Farm Level. Report of Storage & Research
Division, Department of Food & Public Distribution, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food
& Public Distribution, Government of India.
Ashman, F. 1973. Methods and techniques of assessing quality in stored products. Tropical
Stored Products Information 25 : 33-35.
Basappa, g., Deshmanya, J.B and Patil, B. L. 2007. Post- Harvest Losses of Maize Crop
in Karnataka - An Economic Analysis. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 20(1) : 69 71.
Dhuri, A.V. 2006. Fumicover An effort in reducing losses in stored grains at farm Levels.
9th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection at Rome. PS6-15
6184: 612
Dick, K.M. 1987. Pest Management in Stored Groundnuts. ICRISAT Bulletin no. 2. Patancheru
Hyderabad (AP).India.
Golob, P. 1976. Techniques for sampling bagged produce. Tropical Stored Products
Information 31 : 37-48.
Harris, K.L., and Lindblad, C.J. (eds.) 1978. Postharvest grain loss assessment methods.
St. Paul, Minnesota, USA: American Association of Cereal Chemists. 193 pp.
Howe R. W. 1956. The biology of the two common storage species of Oryzaephilus
(Coleoptera, Cucujidae). Annals of Applied Biology 44 (2) : 341355.
Howe, R.W. 1965. Losses caused by insects and mites in stored foods and feeding staffs.
Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 35 : 285-293.
Loschiavo, S.R., and Atkinson, J.M. 1973. An improved trap to detect beetles ( Coleoptera )
in stored grain. Canadian Entomology 105 : 437-440.
Narain, P., and Khosla, R.K. 1984. Estimation of post-harvest food grain losses. Journal of
the Indian Society of Agricultural Statisitics 36 (1) : 127-142.
Proctor, D.L., and Rowley, J.Q. 1983. The thousand grain mass (TGM) method: a basis for
better assessment of weight losses in stored grain. Tropical Stored Products Information
45 : 19-23.
Pruthi ,H.S. and Singh, M. 1948.Pests of stored grain and their control. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Science 18 (4) : 1-86. (Special issue).
Sinha, A.K. Sinha, K.K. (1990). Insect pests Aspergillus flavus and aflatoxin contamination
in stored wheat: a survey at north Bihar (INDIA). Journal of Stored Products Research
26 (4) : 223-236.
195
MOLECULAR MARKERS : CONCEPTS AND

THEIR APPLICATIONS IN ENTOMOLOGY
A. K. Chhabra
Department of Plant Breeding,
Introduction to Marker Systems
Marker : A marker can be anything that guides/

helps you to achieve a target. For example, a tree
or a building can act as a marker if it gives you
directions to reach your destination while on road.
Phenotypic markers are those markers, the
presence of which may indicate the presence or
absence of any other linked / co-inherited trait. For
Example, the presence of hair or the presence of
bristles in pearl millet make the crop insect and
bird resistant respectively. DNA markers are the
fragments of DNA that co-segregate with any trait,
but not necessarily code for those genes. These
are alleles of loci at which there is sequence
variation - or polymorphism - in DNA that is neutral
in terms of phenotype Fig. 1 (hypothetical
example) clearly shows what molecular marker
exactly means and how linkage maps created
through them help in marker-assisted selection.
Morphological or phenotypic markers are
traditional markers that are recognized by visual
observation of the phenotype in the field or
laboratory. If phenotypic characters (markers) are
not available (mono-/oligo-genic), the alternatives
are the biochemical and molecular markers.
Types of molecular markers
Protein markers
The beginners in the area of molecular markers, particularly
with limited resources start with protein analysis. Protein
markers, including seed storage proteins, structural proteins,
and isozymes. These were among the first group of molecular
markers exploited for genetic diversity assessment and
construction of genetic linkage maps. They are also some of
the most cost-effective tools for data point generation, especially
when iso-electric focusing equipment is used to precisely
distinguish between very similar versions of proteins.
Limitations :
Protein Electrophoresis
The major limitations of these markers are - that much of
the genome (including much of the most polymorphic portions of it that are less subject
to evolutionary restrictions) does not code for genes.
196
Different biochemical procedures are required to visualize polymorphism for enzymes

having different functions.
DNA markers
Most points on molecular marker-based genetic linkage maps are anonymous DNA
polymorphisms (e.g., RFLP, AFLP, SSR, SNP markers etc.) and do not correspond to any
gene of known function. However, some molecular markers (including cDNA and ESTs)
markers, as well as the protein markers described above) do pinpoint individual genes.
Anonymous DNA markers are generated by a wide variety of techniques, differing greatly in
their reliability, difficulty, expense, and the nature of the polymorphism that they detect.
RAPD : (Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA), This PCR-based technique requires neither
cloning nor sequencing of DNA. A random amplification of anonymous loci by PCR
(polymerase chain reaction amplification of DNA fragments that may be unique to a loci or
gene). In the process, many bands (e.g. 30 or more) might appear simultaneously on the
electrophoretic gel, some of which are not constant from individual to individual. RAPD
markers allow creation of genomic markers from species of which little is known about
target sequences to be amplified.
AFLP (Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism) : This PCRbased technique requires no sequencing or cloning. It is combination of
both RFLP and RAPD as it uses primers and also Restriction Digestion of
the chromosomes. DNA is cut with restriction enzymes and short
fragments that support PCR which are added to the cut ends. PCR is then
performed to produce many fragments, some of which vary in length from
individual to individual (polymorphic) and is based upon tightly linked
markers flanking the desired gene locus (positional cloning). So it is usually
interpreted as dominantly inherited, although reports of co-dominant
inheritance are also in the literature. AFLP markers are often inherited as
tightly linked clusters in centromeric and telomeric regions of
chromosomes, but randomly distributed AFLP markers also occur outside
these clusters. The technique is difficult to master and is less appropriate
than others for comparative mapping studies.
CAPS (Cleaved Amplified Polymorphic Sequences) : These
secondary markers are identified with two oligonucleotide primers
synthesised on the basis of known DNA sequences. Like SCAR primers
(see below), they specifically amplify single fragments. However,
polymorphism of CAPS is revealed by pre-amplification digestion of
template DNA with several restriction endonucleases.
CHROMOSOME
AFLPs are
generally
clustered at
centromere or
telomere
DAF (DNA Amplification Fingerprint) : In this modification of the RAPD technique,

one or more 7- to 8-nucleotide primers are used to produce a relatively complex pattern.
Amplification products are separated electro-phoretically and visualised by silver staining.
Digestion of template DNA with 1 to 3 restriction endonucleases enhances amplification of
polymorphic DNA, allowing even near-isogenic lines to be distinguished.
EST (Expressed Sequence Tag) : An expressed sequence tag or EST is a short subsequence of a transcribed protein-coding or non-protein coding DNA sequence. It was originally
intended as a way to identify gene transcripts, but has since been instrumental in gene
discovery and sequence determination. An EST is produced by one-shot sequencing of a
197
cloned mRNA, and the resulting sequence is a relatively low quality fragment whose length
is limited by current technology to approximately 500 to 800 nucleotides. ESTs are also a
useful resource for designing probes for DNA microarrays used to determine gene expression.
This PCR-based approach requires both cloning and sequence information. As part of
gene sequencing projects, partial sequences of cDNA clones are generated. These are then
used to design 18-20 base pair primers that provide a unique sequence tagging the gene.
It detects a unique, expressed region of the genome.
Microsatellite or STRs (Short Tandem Repeats) : A microsatellite is a simple DNA
sequence that is repeated several times at various points in the organisms DNA. Such
repeats are highly variable enabling that location
(polymorphic locus or loci) to be tagged or used
as a marker. This has quantitative value when the
location is associated with gene traits of value or
importance. Microsatellites have much more
information than allozymes, yet offer the same
Gel photo of SSR markers population
advantages of analysis. Ambiguity (RAPDs and
AFLPs), or scarcity (RFLPs) are not a problem with microsatellites, given appropriate
enrichment technologies.These PCR-based markers can require considerable investment to
generate, but are then highly polymorphic and inexpensive to use in mapping and MAS.
Advantages of SSRs :
Co-dominant (more informative when dealing with heterozygotes)
Highly variable (important for species with narrow gene pools)
Widely used
Excellent for use in marker assisted selection, fingerprinting and marker assisted
backcrossing
Disadvantages :
Moderate throughput level - efficiency can be increased by multiplexing (using more
than one SSR marker per reaction)
RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism)
RFLP is polymorphism represented by the presence or absence of restriction sites,
which are short sequences along the DNA that can be cut by commercially available restriction
enzymes. Mutations (alterations in the DNA sequence) change the locations along the
genome where these enzymes cleave the DNA. The length of the cut fragment depends on
whether particular restriction sites are present or not (polymorphic). The presence and absence
of fragments resulting from changes in recognition sites are used to identify species or
populations. This is the oldest DNA-based method for finding polymorphic loci, (which are
difficult to find using this methodology), and the analysis may be awkward. The technique
requires large amounts of DNA material which may be invasive and lethal to small aquatic
organisms.
This hybridisation-based technique requires use of a library of DNA fragments cloned
into some vector. These fragments may be from the species under study or from related
(even distantly related) species. The library may be based on genomic or cDNA. RFLP does
not require sequencing. The DNA of the organisms under study are digested with one or
more restriction endonucleases, the resulting fragments separated electrophoretically
according to size, and probed with DNA clones from the library. Fragments matching the
198
probe DNA are visualised by autoradiography or the use of fluorescent labelling techniques.
The radioactive label-based visualisation methods are robust and allow multiple uses of the
DNA separations resulting from a single restriction digest and electrophoresis run.
SCAR(Sequence-Characterized Amplified Region)
These PCR-based secondary markers
are detected with two 24-nucleotide primers
homologous to sequenced ends of a RAPD
marker. They amplify a single fragment with
high reproducibility. Many are co-dominant
and their polymorphism can often be
increased by digesting the PCR product
with restriction enzymes having 4nucleotide binding sites.
SSCP (single-strand conformation
polymorphism)
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/
Molbio/MolStudents /spring2003/Parker/method.html
Fig. : Sample SSCP Gel Result and Interpretation. DNA was isolated and amplified from sand
flies (Lutzomyia longipalpis). SCCP analysis of the DNA shows multiple haplotypes, or sets of
alleles usually inherited as a unit. Lanes 3 and 4 were identical haplotypes from two individuals.
The difference in band migration in adjacent lanes is associated with the number of
nucleotide differences (in parentheses): lanes 2-3 (2), lanes 3-4 (0), lanes 4-5 (3), lanes 56 (1), lanes 6-7 (3), lanes 7-8 (1), lanes 8-9 (1), and lanes 9-10 (4).Source: Hodgkinson,
et al,. 2002 (Journal of Medical Entomology Volume: 39 Issue: 4 Pages: 689-694)
SSCP is the electrophoretic separation of single-stranded nucleic acids based on subtle
differences in sequence (often a single base pair) which results in a different secondary
structure and a measurable difference in mobility through a gel.
Principle Involved : The mobility of double-stranded DNA in gel electrophoresis is

dependent on strand size and length but is relatively independent of the particular nucleotide
sequence. The mobility of single strands, however, is noticeably affected by very small
changes in sequence, possibly one changed nucleotide out of several hundred. Small changes
are noticeable because of the relatively unstable nature of single-stranded DNA; in the absence
of a complementary strand, the single strand may experience intrastrand base pairing,
resulting in loops and folds that give the single strand a unique 3D structure, regardless of
its length. A single nucleotide change could dramatically affect the strands mobility through
a gel by altering the intrastrand base pairing and its resulting 3D conformation .
SSCP Limitations and Considerations
Single-stranded DNA mobilities are dependent on temperature. For best results, gel
electrophoresis must be run in a constant temperature.
Sensitivity of SSCP is affected by pH. Double-stranded DNA fragments are usually
denatured by exposure to basic conditions: a high pH.
Fragment length also affects SSCP analysis. For optimal results, DNA fragment size
should fall within the range of 150 to 300 bp, although SSCP analysis of RNA allows for
a larger fragment size. The presence of glycerol in the gel may also allow a larger DNA
fragment size at acceptable sensitivity.
199
Under optimal conditions, approximately 80 to 90% of the potential base exchanges are
detectable by SSCP.
If the specific nucleotide responsible for the mobility difference is known, a similar
technique called Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) may be applied.
STS (Sequence-Tagged Site) : These PCR-based markers detect a single, unique, sequencedefined point in the genome. They are obtained by sequencing terminal regions of genomic
fragments and cDNAs expressing RFLP. Primers of 18-20 base pairs are designed to amplify this
short, unique fragment. Polymorphism is often reduced compared to the original RFLP marker,
but can be increased at some additional cost by restricting the PCR products to increase the
number of bands detected. Since they are longer than RAPD primers and based on a specific
sequence, STS markers more reliably detect the same locus. They are good for both mapping
studies and MAS, provided that polymorphism detected is adequate.
METHODS TO DETECT SNPs :
Allele Specific PCR: Appropriately designed PCR primers can be used to discriminate
SNP alleles. In the assay developed by See et al., (2000) in barley, two primers are labeled
with different fluorophores at their 5' nucleotides with their 3' termini match each of the SNP
alleles. The PCR is performed using two labeled forward primers and an unlabeled, common
reverse primer. A separate pre-amplification step reduces the complexity many folds and
may be a necessary step in large genomes. Each primer perfectly matches one of the two
available alleles and the alleles can be scored based on fluorescence spectrum or size of
the PCR product size. Although the technique is simple, the throughput is not very high.
Allele Specific Hybridization : In allele specific oligonucleotide hybridization (ASO or
ASH) technique the target PCR product is immobilized and denatured to a membrane and
hybridized with allele specific oligonucleotides. An oligonucleotide that is complementary
to one of the alleles will hybridize to that allele and the other allelic variant will hydridize
with its specific complimentary probe. The detection of the hybridized probe is by radiolabel,
fluorophore or biotin assay. In a variation of this assay oligonucleotides can be immobilized
(instead of amplified targets) and probed with labeled PCR products of the samples.
Fluorescence Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET) Based Methods : The TaqMan
(PE Biosystems) and Molecular Beacons are the homogenous SNP genotyping assays that
depend on fluorescence energy transfer. The TaqMan assay uses the exonuclease activity
of Taq polymerase to discriminate between perfectly matched and mismatched
oligonucleotides (Heid et al., 1996). In TaqMan assay, fluorogenic oligonucleotide probes
are synthesized with a fluorescent reporter dye at the 5' terminus and the 3' terminus contains
a blocking group to prevent probe extension and a quencher that inhibits the fluorescence of
the reporter. The taq-polymerase during its polymerization step in PCR encounters the
annealed probe and begins to displace it. This leads to clipping of the probe by the nuclease
activity of the enzyme and results in increased fluorescence. The presence of an allele is
deciphered by monitoring increase of the fluorescence resulting from the separation of
fluorophore from the quencher. Hundreds of samples can be analyzed simultaneously, and
there is no need of downstream electrophoresis.
Pyrosequencing : Pyrosequencing allows short segments of sequence, typically of 20
nucleotides, and possibly up to 100 nucleotides to be obtained in an automated manner. In
the present configuration, up to 96 different templates can be sequenced simultaneously in
15 minutes after template preparation. Pyrosequencing relies on the stepwise addition of
individual dNTPs and sequencing-by-synthesis (Nyren et al., 1993). The template-guided
incorporation of dNTPs into the growing DNA chain is monitored via luminescent detection of
released pyrophosphate from the incorporation reaction. Genotyping of previously identified
200
SNPs requires only a small stretch of sequence beyond the primer binding site, and
pyrosequencing handles this very efficiently. The procedure involves designing sequencingprimers close to the identified SNP sites, PCR amplifying the SNP loci, obtaining single
stranded template, and sequencing several bases including the target SNP site using Luc96
pyrosequencer.
Third Wave Technology : Third Wave Technologies, Inc developed an enzyme-based
system of genetic identification that utilizes the property of cleavase enzyme (Lyamichev et
al., 1999). The assay is known as CFLP (Cleavase Fragment Length Polymorphism) and it
makes use of the specific sequence-dependant secondary structures containing duplexed
and single stranded regions. The cleavase recognizes these sequences and produces
fragments after cleaving the junction of the duplexed region. This technology does not involve
a PCR amplification step and thus reduces assay costs and the artifacts that can be introduced
during PCR.
Array Based Hybridization : The SNP genotyping can be performed using a very highdensity gene chips. The user-defined chips are available for human SNP analysis by variety
of manufacturers. DNA chip or SNP chip of Affymetrix, for example, contains precisely
ordered arrays of oligonucleotides synthesized in situ on a (glass or) silica-wafer. This can
accommodate as many as 60,000 oligonucleotide probes and can be used to screen as
many as 1500 human SNPs simultaneously (Lipshutz et al., 1999). The procedure involves
PCR amplification of the target, hybridization to the oligonucleotides on the chip, scanning
the chip to see which probe produces the signal, and analyzing the data. The genotype is
determined based on the probe sequences that show strongest hybridization signal, according
to a proprietary algorithm. Highly multiplex PCR is necessary to take full advantage of the
capacity of chips to assay multiple loci.
Single Base Extension - Fluorescent Polarization (SBE-FP) Assay : The fluorescent
polarization assay method for detecting SNPs is a variation of the template-directed dye
terminator incorporation assay, that is detected using fluorescence polarization and was
developed recently (Chen et al., 1999). This method involves an oligonucleotide probe that
hybridizes immediately upstream of the SNP site. All the four ddNTPs, each labeled with a
different fluor is added followed by DNA polymerase and the probe is allowed to extend by a
single base. Fluorescence depolarization is then used to determine which ddNTP was
incorporated. The advantages of this method are the speed and accuracy of SNP detection,
the low cost and the ability to rapidly genotype many targets.
Denaturing High Performance Liquid Chromatography (DHPLC) : DHPLC is a
mismatch detection technology that relies on differences in physical properties between
DNA homoduplexes and mismatched heteroduplexes formed during the annealing of wild
type and mutant DNA (Oefner and Underhill, 1998). The procedure is also called temperature
modulated heteroduplex assay (TMHA) since the method involves heat denaturation of the
DNA and the subsequent slow cooling at an empirically determined optimal temperature. It
is during the cooling that heteroduplexes are formed. Homo and hetero duplexes are resolved
using a proprietary separation matrix. This method does not need any a priori information
about the SNP, but it only detects the presence or absence of a mutation, but not the nature
and location of mutation. The major advantage of TMHA is that it does not need modified
PCR primers, detection labels or any sample pretreatment and still allows some multiplexing
and a degree of automation.
Inter MITE Polymorphisms (IMP) : IMP is a technology that is proprietary to DNA
LandMarks. It is based on the presence of Miniature Inverted-repeat Transposable Elements
(MITEs) in the plant genome. These elements have several advantageous characteristics:
201
Very abundant in plants (several thousand copies per genome)

Highly associated with genes making them excellent markers
Small size (less than 500 base pairs)
Each end has an inverted repeat sequence referred to as a terminal inverted repeat (TIR)
Several distinct MITE families exist - e.g. Tourist-like, Stowaway-like
Despite the name transposable elements they remain relatively fixed in the genome
Because MITEs are so abundant throughout the genome, IMP markers are based on
PCr amplification of the DNA in between two MITEs rather than amplifying the marker itself.
Image generated by an IMP genotype gel : (source of image www.dnalandmarks.ca/
marker_systems_overview.html)
Advantages
Very efficient - able to generate multiple data points with a single reaction
Greatly reduces cost of marker assisted backcross programs
High throughput capability
Widely adaptable across most plant species
Excellent for fingerprinting, marker assisted backcrossing and germplasm characterization
Disadvantages
Generally dominant marker system
Direct amplification of length polymorphisms (DALP) : This is a very new method
that utilizes an arbitrary oligonucleotide addition to universal M13 primers that are used for
sequencing (Desmarais et al., 1998). It is an innovative system that produces DNA fingerprint
polymorphisms within a species based on PCR amplification and in some ways, is similar to
AFLP but has particular advantages, i.e. that it does not involve any restriction or ligation
steps and polymorphisms viewed on an acrylamide gel can be directly sequenced when
detected by using the M13 primers. This technique will be very beneficial in quickly screening
for genetic polymorphisms and allelic variation at given loci, provided that suitable parental
crossings are performed, but has not as yet been used with insects.
Choice of marker system : The marker system
of choice depends on the objective of the study plus
skills and facilities available in the laboratory, but a
combination of two or several techniques is
recommended. Especially AFLPs and SSRs seem to
complement each other (Milbourne et al . 1997). See
the table to compare the reliability and use of different
(common) markers. For direct application by plant
biologist SSRs possess the best qualities because
they are very simple to use once they have been
developed. Still there is a need for more uncomplicated
techniques that are non-hazardous, cheaper, easier
to handle and have a larger degree of automation.
Source:http://gsc.genetics.uth.edu/units/
diorders/karyotype/images/FISH_technique.jpg
Fluorescent IN SITU Hybridization (FISH

Fluorescent IN SITU Hybridization (FISH) is a relatively new technology utilizing
fluorescently labeled DNA probes to detect or confirm gene or chromosome abnormalities
that are generally beyond the resolution of routine Cytogenetics. The sample DNA (metaphase
chromosomes or interphase nuclei) is first denatured, a process that separates the
complimentary strands within the DNA double helix structure. The fluorescently labeled probe
of interest is then added to the denatured sample mixture and hybridizes with the sample
202
DNA at the target site as it reanneals (or reforms itself) back into a double helix. The probe
signal can then be seen through a fluorescent microscope and the sample DNA scored for
the presence or absence of the signal. This is one of the best and most straightforward
methods available for the visual molecular analysis of the position of given gene sequences
on chromosomes and there are evolutionary and taxonomic questions that can be addressed
using this technique
PCR ELISA (Enzyme-linked immuno-absorbent assay)
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) is
a useful and powerful method in estimating ng/ml to
pg/ml ordered materials in the solution, such as serum,
urine and culture supernatant. Its a kind of easy task
to make ELISA if you have good antibodies against
your concerned materials such as proteins, peptides
and drugs. Entomological examples are pending, but
a good example would be the screening of
microorganisms in large population samples (Gibellini
et al., 1993), e.g. in insect vectors of disease (Solano
et al., 1995). It is a quick method of qualitative
assessment of, e.g. races of insects in a collection,
esterase-conferred insecticide resistance, etc, but it
has yet to be utilized. The greatest single expense in
using this technique would be for qualitativeassessment, i.e. a microplate reader. However,
because of its PCR based assessment individual reaction costs would be high, but its speed and
ability to screen large numbers of samples would be cost-effective It is an interesting new molecular
technique which has potential for quick screening.
Forensic Entomology : At a time when many aspects of forensic science are dominated
by recent advances in the field of molecular biology, it is no surprise that DNA technology
should also become a tool of the forensic entomologist. At present, efforts to develop these
tools are still mostly at the research stage. However, they have the potential to move very
quickly into widespread use by those who analyze insect evidence in forensic investigations.
Since 1985, DNA typing of biological material has become one of the most powerful
tools for personal identification in forensic medicine and in criminal investigation (Benecke,
1997b). The advantages of using DNA are that it provides a huge amount of diagnostic
information compared to some older techniques (such as blood-group typing), it is present
in all biological tissues, and it is much more resistant to environmental degradation than
most other biological molecules (e.g., proteins).
APPLICATIONS OF MOLECULAR MARKERS IN ENTMOLOGY
There are vast applications of molecular markers in Entomology. Some of the achievements
made in this area have been listed in the following table along with the relevant references.
For more details the reader may refer to the original papers.
Remarks (Pros and Cons) about DNA Markers :
Restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs): The main advantage, which is

applicable to all DNA markers, is that the level of molecular variation detectable is increased.
With RFLPs, this is because of numerous restriction enzymes that exist which cut the DNA
at different sites and a diverse selection of probes based on hypervariable motifs. However,
the main disadvantage is that such methods utilize radioactive probes (that are expensive
and require specialized laboratories) which need to be screened from genomic libraries if
203
APPLICATIONS OF MOLECULAR MARKERS IN ENTOMOLOGY
204
not already available. Such screening can increase costs. Therefore, these markers are
best adopted if probes from parallel studies to those contemplated already exist.
DNA fingerprinting : The major disadvantage of DNA fingerprinting in general is that
protocols outline the use of radioactive probes; however, such practices can be replaced by
non-isotopic methods, but take time to adapt and problem-solving requires specialist advice.
The cost of the system is similar to that for RFLPs, but synthetic probes negate the screening
of genomic libraries.
Microsatellites (simple sequence repeats; SSRs) : The advantage of this approach is
the ability to detect greater levels of genetic variability (many microsatellite loci, often with
numerous alleles (Evans, 1993), can potentially be screened for ecological use). Individual
alleles can be scored at particular loci and provide good Mendelian markers.
Randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPDs) : This method is relatively quick (in
comparison to radiolabel led work and sequencing), reveals great genetic variability due to
the regions in which amplification takes place (Black et al. ,1992), is useful in differentiating
closely-related individuals and there are numerous commercially available primer kits (Operon
Tech.) which can be used to screen populations.
Conclusions : Long list of molecular markers, variable costs and efficiencies, specificity
and non-specificity etc. are some of the features of molecular markers available in hand that
make it easy for the user to decide the right choice of the marker system suited to his/her
205
research goals. Biologists have now variety of choices among them. The available literature
suggests that these DNA marker systems, as in plants, also show their worth in entomological
areas. However, Entomologists need to modify the protocols (from plants to insects) to
make full use of these systems and find out more areas of investigations.
Important websites :
http://pest.cabweb.org/PDF/BER/Ber88-6/Ber88577.pdf.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=405094&fy=2004
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/acarology/saas/saa/pdf07/003-014.pdf
https://www.who.int/tdr/grants/workplans/entomol.htm
http://www.scipub.net/botany/molecular-markers-plant-genetics-biotechnology.html
http://www.scipub.net/entomology/index.html
http://entomology.wisc.edu/~dshoemak/Publications/Pub.htm
http://insects.ucr.edu/people/heraty.html
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/feb252005/541.pdf
http://www.colostate.edu/Dept s/Entomology/courses/en575/en575.html
http://www.mrcindia.org/mol-ent.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez
query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10331278&dopt=Abstract
SUGGESTED READING
Boulter D. (1993). Insect pest control by copying nature using genetic engineering crops.
Phytochem . 34 : 1453-1466.
Crickmore N., Ziegler D.R., FietelsonJ., Schnepf E., Van Rie J., Lerectus D., Baum
J.and Dean D.H. (1998). Revision of nomenclature for Bacillus thuringiensis
pesticidal crystal proteins. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 62 : 807-813.
Estruch J.J., Carrozzi N.B., Desai N., Duck N.B., Warren G.W. and Koziel (1997). Transgenic
plants: An emerging approach to pest control. Nature Biotechnol . 15 : 137-141.
Gatehouse A.M.R. and Gatehouse J.A. (1998) Identifying proteins with insecticidal activity:
use of encoding genes to produce insect resistant transgenic plants. Pest. Sci.
52 : 165-175.
Hilder V.A. and Boulter, D.(1999). Genetic engineering of crop plants for insect resistancea critical review. Crop Protection 18 :177-191.
Loxdale, H.D. and G. Lushai (1998) Molecular Markers in Entomology. Bulletin of
Entomological Research (1998) 88, 577600
Ranjekar Ranjekar PK, Patankar A, Gupta VS, Bhatnagar RK, Bentur J and Ananda Kumar
P (2003) Genetic engineering of crop plants for insect resistance. Current Science
84 (3) : 321-329.
Sharma H.C., Sharma K.K. and Crouch (2004). Genetic transformation of crops for insect
resistance: Potential and limitations. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci . 23 (1) : 47-72.
Vos P, Hogers R, Bleeker M, Reijans M, van de Lee T, Hornes M, Frijters A, Pot J, Peleman
J, Kuiper M & Zabeau M (1995) AFLP: a new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic
Acids Res. 23, 4407-4414.
Williams JGK, Kubelic AR, Livak KJ, Rafalsky JA & Tingey SV (1990) DNA polymorphisms
amplified by arbitrary primers are useful as genetic markers. Nucleic Acids Res.
18, 6531-6535.
206

LOSSES DUE TO INSECT-PESTS IN RABI VEGETABLES
S. S. Sharma and V. S. Malik
Fruit borer (Helicoverpa armigera ) and whitefly ( Bemisia tabaci ) in tomato; leafhopper
( Empoasca fabae), aphid ( Myzus persicae ), whitely ( Bemisia tabaci ), potato tuber moth
( Gnorimoschema operculella) in potato; diamondback moth ( Plutella xyllostella ), aphid
( Brevicorne brassicae), tobacco caterpillar ( Spodoptera litura ), leafwebber ( Crocidolomia
binnotata ), headborer (Hellula undalis ) and cabbage butterfly (Pieris brassicae ) in cole crops;
thrips ( Thrips tabaci ) and onion maggot [ Hylemia=(Delia) antique ] in onion and garlic; pod
bores ( Helicoverpa armigera and Etiella zinckella , blue butterfly (Polyomatous boeticus )
and leaf miner( Chromatomyia horticola ) in pea; black aphid (Aphis craccivora ) in fenugreek;
green aphid ( Hyadaphis coriandri ) and seed midge in coriander, fennel and cumin are among
the most important pests of rabi vegetable crops.
INSECT PESTS OF COLE CROPS
Diamondback moth ( Plutella xylostella )
F : Yponomeutidae
O : Lepidoptera
Newly hatched larva enters the leaf tissues and feeds inside. Later on it comes out and
feeds by scrapping the epidermis leaving behind typical white patches. Big caterpillar bites
holes in leaves and may enter the flower also. If the young seedlings are attacked, the
growing tip is eaten away and the curd is not formed.
Economic Threshold : 20 larvae/plant (Prasad, 1963), 74 (3/4 instar) larvae/plant in
seedling stage or 20 larvae/plant , 10 (3/4 instar) larvae/plant in one month after transplanted
crop, or 20 (3/4 instar),larvae/plant in 1-2 months after transplanted crop (Jayarathnam,
1977), 2 larvae/plant at 1-4 weeks after transplanting, or 5 larvae/plant at 5-10 WAT (Morallo
el al., 1996)
Loss : Viraktamat h et al. (1994) reported a loss of 16.87-98.83 per cent.
Tobacco caterpillar (Spodoptera litura ( Fabricius)
F : Noctuidae
O : Lepidoptera
The young larvae feed gregariously for few days on green material of leaf and skeletonize
it and then disperse to feed individually. They feed on leaves by making big holes and enter
the cabbage also. They are voracious feeders and faeces can be seen on leaves.
Cabbage butterfly ( Pieris brassicae (Linnaeus)
F : Pieridae
O : Lepidoptera
The caterpillars feed gregariously during early stage and disperse as their reach maturity.
The young larvae scrap the leaf surface whereas the old larvae eat up the leaves from the
margin inwards leaving the main veins only.
Loss : Thakur (1996) reported a loss of 68.5 per cent from Meghalaya
Cabbage aphid : Lipaphis erysimi (KaItenback), Brevicoryne brassicae (Linnaeus)
F : Aphididae
O : Homoptera
Both nymphs and adults suck cell sap from the plants especially the tender parts resulting
in devitalization of the plants. They also produce honeydew, which attracts sooty moulds
resulting in the hindrance in photosynthesis.
207
Loss : A loss of 36.5 per cent in Uttar Pradesh (Ram et al. 1987) and 44- 54 per cent in
Karnataka (Kumar et al., 1986) has been reported.
Cabbage head borer ( Hellula Undalis (Fabricius)
F : Pyralididae
O : Lepidoptera
This is an important pest of cauliflower, cabbage, Chinese cabbage, and mustard cabbage.
Major damage occurs on young plants but caterpillars also feed on older plants from
transplanting and heading stage. Larva makes tunnel into the main stem resulting in stunting,
deformed plants and multiple growing points or heads and sometimes death of young plants.
Loss : A loss of 30 -58 per cent in Karnataka has been reported (Kumar et al. 1986).
Leaf webber (Crocidolomia binotalis Zeller)
F : Pyralidae
O : Lepidoptera
Males shows great delineation with dark tuft of hairs on the anterior margin of each
forewing which the females lack. Larva dark heads and appear grey at hatching and light
green thereafter with distinctive yellowish white stripes. One larva can finish the whole plant
by feeding the growing point. Larva is highly mobile and reaches the preferred host plant. It
also bores into cabbage head.
Economic Threshold (E.T.) : 0.3 egg mass/plant (Sutiadi el al., 1994)
Loss : A loss of 28.09.50.88 per cent in Karnatka has been reported (Peter et al., 1988).
Sawfl y (Athalia proxima (Klug)
F : Tenthridinidae
O : Hymenoptera
Medium sized fly with black wings, larva is pseudo caterpillar black in colour damages
the plant by cutting the leaf from margin.
Loss: A loss of 36.5 per cent in Uttar Pradesh has been reported (Ram et al. 1987).
INSECT PESTS OF TOMATO
Fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)
F:
Noctuidae
O : Lepidoptera
Nature of damage : Young larvae feed on tender leaves and advanced stage larvae feed
on flower buds and fruits. Circular holes are made by the larva in fruits and it feeds the
internal contents. A part of the body is kept outside the fruit.
Economic Threshold (E.T.) : One larva per square meter area or one larva or one egg or
one damaged fruit per plant. 8 eggs/15 plants or one larval/ plant (Sutiadi el al., 1994),
Loss : A loss of 22.39 - 37.79 per cent in Karnataka has been reported (Tewari and
Moorthy).
Whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius)
F : Aleyrodidae
O : Homoptera
Nature of damage : Both nymphs and adults suck the cell sap from leaves and secrete
honeydew on which attracts black sooty mold. They are vectors of virus diseases.
EIL : 3 nymphs / leaf (Bolano, 1997).
Leaf miner : Phytomyza atricornis
F : Agromyzidae
O : Diptera
Nature of damage : The infested leaves show shiny white streaks against the green
background due to which photosynthetic activity is reduced.
208
INSECT PESTS OF PEA

American bollworm ( Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)
F : Noctuidae
O : Lepidoptera
Nature of damage : The larva makes a round hole on the pod and feeds the green
grains in side the pod. While feeding, it keeps its head inside the pod and remaining body
outside the pod. Sometimes whole larva goes inside the pod and all the grains are consumed.
Leaf miner : Chromatomyia horticola Meigen
F : Agromyzidae
O : Diptera
Eggs are laid in leaf tissue; maggots on hatching mine the leaves in zigzag fashion.
Pupation takes place in the mines itself. Adults are tiny black files with transparent wings.
The infested leaves show shiny white streaks against the green background due to which
photosynthetic activity is reduced.
Blue butterfly : Polyomatus boeticus (Linnaeus)
F : Lycaenidae
O : Lepidoptera
Adult is small blue colured butterfly. Caterpillars are pinkish green, lethargic and feed
on the internal contents of pod.
Pod borers : Etiella zinckenella (Treitschke)
F : Pyralidae O : Lepidoptera
Adults are purple brown moths having greyish brown forewings. Caterpillars are reddish
pink dorsally and pale green ventrally and feed inside the green pods on green grains.
Fruit borer : Helicoverpa (= Heliothis) armigera (Hubner)F : Noctuidae
O : Lepidoptera
Young larvae feed on tender leaves and advanced stage larvae feed on flower buds and
fruits. Circular holes are bored in fruits through which it thrusts its head inside the fruit and
feeds the internal contents. Remaining part of the body keeps outside the fruit.
Economic Threshold (E.T.) : One larva per square meter area or one larva or one egg or
one damaged fruit per plant.
Pea aphids (Acyrlhosiphon pisum (Harris)
F : Aphididae
O : Homoptera
Both nymphs and adults suck the cell sap from the under side of the leaves.
Economic Threshold (E.T.) : 3-4 aphids/stem tip (Bommarco, 1991),
INSECT PESTS OF ROOT CROPS
American bollworm ( Helicoverpa armigera ) in Radish F : Noctuidae O : Lepidoptera
After hatching the young larva feeds on flower buds or pods. The anthers in the flower
buds and the seeds in the pods are eaten. The pods become empty and hollow and there is
heavy loss in seed production.
Aphid in Radish, Raphanus sativus
F : Aphididae
O : Homoptera
Both nymph and adults suck the cell sap from the leaves, stem and pods. The plant
remains stunted and the pods shrivel resulting in week grain formation and heavy loss in
seed producion. They secrete honeydew making the plant sticky.
INSECT PESTS OF ONION AND GARLIC
Onion thrips ( Thrips tabaci Lindeman)
F : Thripidae O : Thysanoptera
The nymphs of this insect are tiny yellow wingless and the adults are brown black with
fringed wings. Both the nymphs and adults can be seen moving fastly on the leaves and the
209
central whirl of the plant. Both nymphs and adults lacerate the leaf tissues and suck the
oozing out of the leaf tissues; silvery white blotches are formed which later on turn white
brown; tip of the leaf dries up and plant remains stunted having twisted leaves ; the crop
gives a burnt look.
Onion maggot [Hylemya=(Delia) antique Meigen] F :
O : Diptera
The adult is a bristly, gray fly with large wings. The maggots are white legless larvae.
After hatching the maggots crawl to the roots, stem and bulb and feed on them. The damaged
plant becomes yellow to brown which later on dry away and the bulb may get rotten.
INSECT PESTS OF FENUGREEK
Black aphid ( Aphis craccivora )
F : Aphididae
O : Homoptera
This aphid is black, bold and shining in colour. They feed on leaves, mainly on stem,
inflorescence and pods. The damaged pods shrivel and become week. The grains formed in
the damaged pods are very thin and thus occurs a heavy loss in seed yield.
Loss : A loss upto 62.3-68.8 per cent in Haryana has been reported (Sharma and Kalra,
2002).
INSECT PESTS OF CORIANDER
Aphid (Hyadaphis coriandri )
F : Aphididae
O : Homoptera
This aphid is pear shaped,light green in colour which looks like blue white. It is a serious
pest at both vegetative and flowering stage. Both nymphs and adults suck the cell sap from
leaves, stem and inflorescence. The damaged portion becomes sticky and the damage umbels
look like burnt and production of seed in the damaged umbels is either zero or if formed they
are very thin and of poor quality.
Loss : Loss in seed yield may go up to 90 per cent (Kalra and Sharma 2006).
INSECT PESTS OF CARROT SEED CROP
Semilooper (Plusia orichalcea (Fabricius)
F : Noctuidae
O : Lpidoptera
Moth has golden shiny fore wings, larva green in colour with light brown head feeds on
the inflorescence of carrot seed crop. Flowers are heavily damaged leaving behind the flower
petioles only.
Loss : More than 90% in seed yield (Sharma, 2011).
SUGGESTED READING
Jayarathnam, K. 1977. Studies on the population dynamics of the diamondback moth, Plutella
xylostella (Lin.) (Lepidoptera:Yponomeutidae) and crop loss due to the pest in cabbage.
Ph,D. Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore 215 pp.
Kalra, V. K., Sharma, S. S. and Tehlan, S. K. 2006. Population dynamics of Hyadaphis
corianderi on different cultivars and varieties of coriander and seed yield losses caused
by it. Journal of Medicinal and Aromatic Plant Sciences 28 : 377-378.
Kalra, V. K.1992. Heliothis armigera Hubner on tomato- incidence and extent of damageA note. Haryana J. Hort. Sci ., 21 (3-4) : 316-318.
210
Krishnaiah, K. 1980. Assessment of Crop Losses due to Pests and Diseases (Ed. H.C.
Govindu). UAS Tech. Series. No. 33 : 259-267.
Lange, W. H. and Bronson, L. 1981. Insect pests of tomato. Ann. Rev. Ent. 26 : 345-371.
Peter, C., Iqbal, Sineh, Channa Basavanna, GP., Suman, C.L., Krishnaiah, K. and Singh, I.
1988. Loss estimation in cabbage due to leaf webber Crocidolomia binotalis (Lepidoptera:
Pyra1idae). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 85 : 642-644.
Prasad, S.K. 1963. Quantitative estimation of damage to crucifers caused by cabbage worm,
cabbage looper, diamondback moth and cabbage aphid. Indian Journal of Entomology.
25 : 242-259.
Sharma, S.S. 2011. Semilooper a serious pest of carrot seed crop. Annual Report 2011.
Deptt.of Entomology, CCS HAU Hisar.
Sharma, S. S. and Kalra, V. K. 2002. Assessment of seed yield losses caused by Aphis
craccivora Koch, in fenugreek . Forage Res . 28 (3) : 183-184.
Sutiadi, A. L., Prabaningrum, T. K., Mockaasan and Setiawati, W. 1994. Implementation of
IPM Technology on Vegetables (Eds. A.A.Asandhi and S.Sastroviswoyo) Lembang
Horticultural Research Institute, Bendung, Indonesia pp. 14.
Tewari, G. C. and Moorthy, P. N. K. 1994. Yield loss in tomato caused by fruit borer. Indian
J. agric. Sci. 54 : 341-347.
Trivedi, T.P., Rajagopal, D and Tandon, P.L 1994. Assessment of losses due to potato tuber
moth. Journal of the Indian Potato Association 21 : 207-210.
211
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS UNDER CAFT TRAINING 6th to 26th SEPTEMBER, 2011

Dr. S. Sivaramakrishnan
Asstt. Professor
Department of Biotechnology
Bharathidasan University,
Truchirappalli-620024 (Tamil Nadu).
E-mail: sivaramakrishnan123@yahoo.com; Ph.09896269100
Dr. Mohd.Ilyas Mohd.Osman,
Asstt.Prof. (Entomology)
Deptt. of Entomology,
Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Parbhani-431402 (MS).
E-mail: ilyas4080@gmail.com; Mob.: 09423901924
Dr. Lalitkumar Vallabhdas Ghetiya
Assistant Professor
B.A. College of Agriculture,
Anand Agril. University,
Anand-388110 (Gujarat).
E-mail: lvghetiya@yahoo.co.in; Mob: 09725006021
Dr. Niraj Shriram Satpute,
Assistant Professor,
Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Akola.
E-mail: niraj_ento@yahoo.co.in; Mob: 09657725859.
Dr. Shailendra Singh Dhaka
Asstt. Professor
KVK Pilibhit
S.V. Patel University of Agri. & Tech.,Meerut.
Mob: 09412114409; Email: chssdhaka@gmail.com
Dr. Ravi Kumar Nehru
Assoc. Professor
Division of Entomology
Sher-e-Kashmir Univ. of Agri. Sciences & Technology
Kashmir, Shalimar, Srinagar-191121.
E-mail: nehrurk@yahoo.co.in; Mob: 094191-03289
Dr. Kalariya Girdharlal Bhagvanji
Subject Matter Specialist (Plant Protection)
Krishi Vigyan Kendra,
Navasari Agricultural University,
Navsari-396 450 (Gujarat).
E-mail: girdharlalk@yahoo.com; Mob: 09925346796
Dr. Balu Nilkanth Chaudhary
Asstt. Prof. of Entomology
Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Sindewani, Distt. Chanderpur (MS)
212
Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth,

Akola.
E-mail: bncent@rediffmail.com; Mob: 09404080566.
Dr. Alpeshkumar V. Khanpara
Asstt. Research Scientist
COA, Junagarh Agril. University
Junagadh-362 001 (Gujarat).
E-mail: alpesh@jau.in; Mob: 09427736721
Dr. Sambsiva Rao Nalla
Scientist (Entomology)
Post Harvest Technology Centre
Acharya N.G. Ranga Agril. University
Agriculture College Campus, Bapatla, Guntur Dt,
AP-522101. Mob: 09959983680;
Email: nallasambasivarao@gmail.com
Dr. Bhamare Vijay Krishnarao
Asstt. Professor (Entomology)
COA Badnapur
Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth
Prabhani(M.S.).
Email: bhamare@indiatimes.com; vijay.bhamare@rediffmail.com; Mob: 09822187248
D. Nazrussalam
Jr.Scientist-cum-Asstt.Professor,
ZRS Darisai / BAU Ranchi
Jharkhand.
Mob: 09608725885
Dr. Satya Pal Yadav
Distt.Extension Specialist (Ento.)
KVK, Fatehabad.
Email: spkolana@gmail.com; Mob: 09466780600
Mr. Nagendra Kumar
Jr.Scientist-cum-Asstt.Prof. (Ento.)
AICRP on MAP & BETELVINE, Deptt. of Plant Pathology
Rajendra Agril. University, Pusa, Samastipur
Bihar-848125.
Email: nagendra_vamnicom@rediffmail.com; Mob: 09031536495
Dr. Anjumoni Devee
Asstt.Professor
Assam Agril. University
Jorhat (Assam)
Email: amdevee@gmail.com; Mob: 09854192513
Dr. Pravinkumar D. Ghoghari
Assistant Research Scientist
Agril. Experimental Station, Paria
Navsari Agricultural University, Distt.Valsad
Navsari-396 145 (Gujarat).
Email: drpdg_29@rediffmail.com; Mob: 09428636583
213
Dr. Tarun Verma,

DES (Entomology)
ATIC, CCS Haryana Agricultural University,
Hisar.
Email: vermatarun27@gmail.com; Mob: 09416929299
Dr. Patel Snehalben Maganbhai
Assistant Professor
Horticulture Polytechnic
Aspee College of Horticulture & Forestry
Navsari Agricultural University, Eru Char Rasta, Dandi Road
Navsari-396 450 (Gujarat); Mob: 09428870528
Dr. Sushil Kumar P. Saxena
Associate Professor, Department of Plant Protection
ASPEE College of Horticulture & Forestry
Navasari Agricultural University, Eru Char Rasta, Dandi Road, Navsari-396 450 (Gujarat).
E-mail: saxenasushil2003@rediffmail.com; Mob:09427108412
Mr. Nimish Anil Kumar Bhatt
Assistant Professor
B.A. College of Agriculture,
Anand Agril. University
Anand-388110 (Gujarat).
Email: nabhatt@gmail.com; Mob: 09429328114
Dr. Vijay Shankar Acharya
Assistant Professor (Entomology)
KVK, Beechwal, Bikaner
SK Rajasthan Agril. University, Bikaner.
E-mail: vijuzee@gmail.com; Mob: 09314477228
Dr. T.Selvamuthukumaran
Asstt. Professor (Entomology)
Faculty of Agriculture,
Annamalai University, Chennai (T.N.).
Email: entoselva@gmail.com; Mob: 09443703124
Dr. Suresh Kakroo, Assoc.Prof.,
Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agri. & Technology
Kashmir, Shalimar-191121 (Srinagar).
Email: suresh.kakroo@yahoo.in; Mob.: 09419149890.
214

Diagnosis of Arthoropod

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Diagnosis of Arthoropod

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Vice-Chancellor

CCS Haryana Agricultural University

Prof. & Head

TITLE AND NAME

DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS OF MACRO AND MICRONUTRIENTS'

PLANT HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS AND LOSS ASSESSMENT :

nutrients unavailable to the plants. Pattern of damage is characteristics of some particular

INSECT' NOMENCLATURE, IDENTIFICATION,

Fig. 1 & 2. Adult, Mantophasma zephyra Zompro & Adis

Table 1. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Status Categories

Taxa in danger of extinction and whose survival is unlikely if the

Taxa believed likely to move into the Endangered category in the

Taxa known to be Endangered, Vulnerable, or Rare but where

A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO DIAGNOSING

DEFINE THE PROBLEM

Fig.1. Plant infested by a variety of insects

Use of plant parts for making nests

METHODS OF ESTIMATING CROP LOSSES

Exclusion of pests, or reduction of their populations by the use of pesticides, allowing

Pest control economics :

SIGNIFICANCE OF INSECT PEST-LOSS RELATIONSHIPS

A sigmoid or S-shaped relationship (Fig. 1B)

Pest-loss relationship (Source : P. T. Walker, 1977).

Duration of pest attack

PROCEDURE FOR COLLECTING PLANT AND

Units for data

Plant health clinics around the world.

RDA Bogra, AAS, and Shushilan

CIAT Santa Cruz, PROINPA, and UMSS

Universit Catholique du Graben, Butembo

GB Pant University of Agriculture and Technol.

University of North Sumatera (USU)

Farmer organisations, NGOs, INTA, and others.

Socadido, SG2000, Caritas and MAAIF

INSECT SAMPLING FOR DECISION MAKING

Pests in soil and debris

Number and size of samples

Sampling techniques for major insect pests of some crops

Count leafhopper nymphs from underside

Whitefly (Bemisia tabaci)

Count whitefly adults as above.

Spotted bollworm (Earias spp.)

10% drooping shoots or

Count drooping shoots and healthy shoots

5-10% infested fruiting

Count rosetted flowers and examine all

5-10% infested fruiting

Aphid ( Aphis gossypii)

10-15% infested plants

Examine presence of aphid or its symptoms

Thrips (Thrips tabaci)

Same as for aphid

Cotton Leaf hopper (jassid)

Select 5 micro-plots of 1m2 each in a field

2 damaged leaves/ plant

Count infested and healthy plants among

Rice gundhi bug

Count the insect on 25 random plants.

Early shoot borer

Dead hearts in 15-20%

From 5 random rows in a field, examine

Dead hearts in 10% tillers

Same as for early shoot borer

Count pyrilla nymphs and adults on 10