Submit or Track your Manuscript LOG-IN

Management of Callosobruchus chinensis L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in Stored Chickpea Grains by using Entomopathogenic Fungi

Management of Callosobruchus chinensis L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in Stored Chickpea Grains by using Entomopathogenic Fungi

Mohsin Iqbal1, Farid Asif Shaheen1*, Farah Naz2, Muhammad Usman Raja2, Muhammad Fiaz3 and Muhammad Nadeem1 

1Department of Entomology, PMAS-Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi, Pakistan, 46300; 2Department of Plant Pathology, PMAS-Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi, Pakistan, 46300; 3Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, PMAS, Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi, Pakistan, 46300.

shaheen@uaar.edu.pk  

Eq 1
Eq2
Figure 1

Modeling trend for mean number of eggs laid by pulse beetle in response to different concentrations of B. bassiana. 

Figure 2

Modeling trend for mean number of eggs laid by pulse beetle in response to different concentrations of M. anisopliae. 

Figure 3

Modeling trend for mean number of holes made by C. chinensis in response to different concentrations of B. bassiana. 

Figure 4

Modeling trend for mean number of holes made by C. chinensis in response to different concentrations of M. anisopliae. 

Figure 5

Modeling trend for emergence of F1 adults of pulse beetle in response to different concentrations of B. bassiana. 

Figure 6

Modeling trend for emergence of F1 adults of pulse beetle in response to different concentrations of M. anisopliae. 

Figure 7

Percent inhibition rate (Mean ± SE) of pulse beetle in stored chickpea treated with different concentrations of B. bassiana and M. anisopliae. 

Figure 8

Modeling trend of percent inhibition rate (Mean ± SE) of pulse beetle in stored chickpea treated with different concentrations of B. bassiana. 

Figure 9

Modeling trend of percent inhibition rate (Mean ± SE) of pulse beetle in stored chickpea treated with different concentrations of M. anisopliae. 

Figure 10

Modeling trend of days to 100% mortality of F1 adults (Mean ± SE) of pulse beetle in stored chickpeas treated with different concentrations of B. bassiana and M. anisopliae. 

Figure 11

Modeling trend of days to 100% mortality of F1 adults (Mean ± SE) of pulse beetle in stored chickpeas treated with different concentrations of B. bassiana. 

Figure 12

Modeling trend of days to 100% mortality of F1 adults (Mean ± SE) of pulse beetle in stored chickpeas treated with different concentrations of M. anisopliae. 

Figure 13

Percent weight loss (Mean ± SE) caused by pulse beetle in stored chickpeas treated with different concentrations of B. bassiana and M. anisopliae. 

Figure 14

Modeling trend of percent weight loss (Mean ± SE) caused by pulse beetle in stored chickpeas treated with different concentrations of B. bassiana. 

Figure 15

Modeling trend of percent weight loss (Mean ± SE) caused by pulse beetle in stored chickpeas treated with different concentrations of M. anisopliae. 

Figure 16

Percent damage (Mean ± SE) caused by pulse beetle in stored chickpeas treated with different concentrations of B. bassiana and M. anisopliae. 

Figure 17

Modeling trend of percent damage (Mean ± SE) caused by pulse beetle in stored chickpeas treated with different concentrations of B. bassiana. 

Figure 18

Modeling trend of percent damage (Mean ± SE) caused by pulse beetle in stored chickpeas treated with different concentrations of M. anisopliae. 

Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research

December

Vol.36, Iss. 4, Pages 297-403

Featuring

Click here for more

Subscribe Today

Receive free updates on new articles, opportunities and benefits


Subscribe Unsubscribe