Submit or Track your Manuscript LOG-IN

Persisting Resistance of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to Pyrethroid, Organophosphate and Carbamate Insecticides

PJZ_54_4_1649-1656

Persisting Resistance of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to Pyrethroid, Organophosphate and Carbamate Insecticides

Honnakerappa S. Ballari1 and Shashikant S. Udikeri2*

1Department of Agricultural Entomology, College of Agriculture, Dharwad 580005, Karnataka, India.

2Agricultural Research Station, Dharwad Farm, Dharwad 580007, Karnataka, India.

ABSTRACT

Insecticide resistance in polyphagous pest Helicoverpa armigera is important in any agroecosystem. The resistance to classical insecticides viz., synthetic pyrethroids, organophosphates and carbamates was global issue in early nineties. Hence many new generation pesticides are in use widely. To know the status of different insecticides belonging pyrethroid, ogranophaopsahte and carbamate molecules monitoring was exercised using populations of H. armigera collected from different agroclimatic situations in Karnataka state, India. An abstinent to tremendous resistance was documented for synthetic pyrethroids, carbamates and organphosphates insecticide despite under use of these molecules over decades. Raichur populations comprehend high level of resistance to Pyrethroids with LC 50 121.63 ppm to cypermenthrin which indicated 23.21fold of resistance with respect to a laboratory susceptible strain. Similarly, there was 24.95 folds of resistance to deltamethrin in same population with LC 50 128.47 ppm. Among organophosphates a high level of resistance was recorded against monochrotophos with LC50 160.94 ppm and 18.23 resistance ratio in Rachur population itself. The same population exhibited 9.24 resistance ratio towards thiodicarb a carbamate insecticide. Kalaburagi population indicated resistance close to Raichur population against all insecticides both being high selection pressures areas. On the contrary resistance to each insecticide tested was low in Vijayapur population, a low rainfall area. The cross resistance was significant amongst similar groups and negative in a selective pattern. Quinolphos, lambda cyhalothrin and profenphos with high r = -8 to -9 appeared to be choice for rotation a resistance management strategy.


Article Information

Received 22 August 2020

Revised 01 November 2020

Accepted 20 November 2020

Available online 30 July 2021

(early access)

Published 18 April 2022

Authors’ Contribution

HSB conducted entire experiment as PG student, analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. SSU concept development and facilitation of this experiment as guide, writing the manuscript.

Key words

Helicoverpa armigera, Insecticide, Resistance, Pyrethroids, Organophosphates, Carbamates

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/20200822140857

* Corresponding author: ssudikeri@gmail.com

0030-9923/2022/0004-1649 $ 9.00/0

Copyright 2022 by the authors. Licensee Zoological Society of Pakistan.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).



INTRODUCTION

Gram podborer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) is a cosmopolitan and widely distributed insect pest of global importance. It has host range of >360 plant species including the crop plants viz., cotton, maize, sorghum, sunflower, tomato, okra, pulses and legumes (Singh and Singh, 1975). About 182 plant species have been reported as hosts of H. armigera by Pawar et al. (1986) amongst which 56 are heavily damaged. Worldwide, losses due to this pest in cotton, legumes, vegetables, cereals, exceeded US$2 billion and the cost of insecticides used to control was over US$1 billion annually (Reed and Pawar, 1982) when insecticide resistance issues started underpinning. In India, a yield loss caused by H. armigera in different crops ranged between 20 to 30 per cent and sometimes rose to 75 % in chickpea (Rahman, 1989). Further the loss ranged from 70 to 95% (Prakash et al., 2007) indicating persisting resistance. In cotton alone 35-38 % of insecticide was used to manage H. armigera the American bollworm by Tamil Nadu and Karnataka state farmers as per Rai et al. (2009).

H. armigera is able to endorse various cropping systems due to its high polyphagy, wide geographical range; mobility, migratory potential, facultative diapause, high fecundity (Fitt, 1989). Propensities to progress insecticides resistance are physiological, ethological and ecological factors that have robustly subsidized to its pest stature. However, with the extensive use of chemicals, a widespread of resistance to pyrethroids, organophosphates and carbamates insecticides cropped up in H. armigera in India and other countries in 1990s. Pest has been wreaked to heavy selection pressure and the development of resistance to the major chemical families of insecticides has been recorded, including carbamates (methomyl, thiodicarb, carbaryl), organophosphates (monocrotophos, quinalphos and phoxim, and to a lesser extent profenofos, methyl-parathion, phosalone and chlorpyrifos) and especially pyrethroids (i.e. permethrin, fenvalerate, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, lambda-cyhalothrin) as reported by (Gunning et al., 1984; Armes et al., 1996; McCaffery, 1998). Over dependence on a particular group of chemical is one of the important reasons for rapid development of resistance. With this development of insecticide resistance, the control of H. armigera has become critical in many regions worldwide (Tabashnik et al., 2014). Increased resistance of H. armigera in Pakistan (Ahmad et al., 1995), South India (Ramasubramanian and Regupathy, 2004; IndraChaturvedi, 2013), Spain (Torres et al., 2002) and West Africa (Brun et al., 2010). With advent of insecticides belonging newer groups and awareness of IPM practices usage of pyrethoides, organophospahates (OPs) and carbamates has been reduced. Further adaption of Bt transgenic cotton hybrids synthetic insecticide usage in cotton ecosystem reduced significantly targeting bollworm H. armigera.

However, information about H. armigera resistance to different insecticides in different locations of Karnataka state of India (Fig. 1) representing major cropping systems is limited. Field control failures of H. armigera have been reported in Karnataka by pest control advisors as well as in the technical literature about crop protection. Thus it was essential to understand status of resistance to selected organophospahate, carbamate and pyrethroid insecticide which are still in use in different crops to know their contribution to control failures. Hence resistance was monitored in different field populations of H. armigera during 2016-17. The locations repreneted different agro-climatic zones, cultivated host crop dominance as well as insecticide pressures area with respect to H. armigera.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was conducted at the Agriculture Research Station, Dharwad (Hebballi) Farm of University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad during 2016-17 in laboratory. The H. armigera larvae were collected from different locations of Karnataka (Fig. 1), representing different cropping patterns and agro-ecosystems which are dominating host crops of H. armigera (Honnakerappa and Udikeri, 2018).

Test insect rearing

The field collected late instar larvae of H. armigera were brought to the laboratory, kept individually in 5cm diameter Petri dishes and fed with artificial diet as described by Kranthi (2005). The culture was maintained location wise separately. Then pupae were transferred into petridishes having moist sawdust (5 pupae/Petri dish) and placed in separate adult cages. The adults were fed with 10% honey solution and allowed for mating. Five mating pairs were maintained in each adult cages and provision oviposition was done with black cloth. After hatching first instar larvae were reared in large Petri plates provided with thin layer artificial diet. While larvae reached late second instar status they were reared individually in TNAU model and/or 50 well larval trays. The laboratory condition during experiment was maintained at 27+1 0C with photo-period of 14D: 10L, while the relative humidity was maintained at 65+5%.

Establishment of reference strain

A laboratory susceptible strain of H. armigera provided by Dr. Vinay Kalai Principal Scientist, Division of Entomology, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi was rused as reference strain (LAB-S) in this study. This strain was maintained as per rearing procedure followed for field test strains.

Test insecticides

The insecticides used in the study and formulations are shown in Table I. All insecticides were obtained as commercial formulations available in market during 2016. The required concentrations of test insecticides were prepared from the formulated products by dissolving the required quantities in double distilled water after accurate weighments. The solutions thus prepared were preserved in refrigerator for further use. Concentrations limiting the mortality between 10-90% were used for probit, log dose mortality analysis. To arrive at five test concentrations couple of round pilot tests were carried out.

Bio-assays for resistance studies

Bioassays were conducted using third instar (1d old) larvae of H. armigera from F1 generation cultures of each location and SUS-L strain. Residual toxicity method (Rafiee et al., 2008) was followed for bio-assays. Fully expanded DCH-32 non Bt cotton leaf discs (5cm diameter) were dipped in the insecticide solutions for 10s, and allowed to dry for 30 min. These leaf discs were placed into plastic Petri dishes lined with moistened filter paper to avoid desiccation. Ten larvae were used in each concentration of every insecticide and replicated four times. A distilled water dipped and dried set with 10 larvae replicated four times served as control to correct the mortality.

 

Table I. Insecticides used for the determination of resistance in Helicoverpa armigera.

Chemicals

Formulations

Trade name

Manufactures

Synthetic pyrethroids

Cypermethrin

10 EC

Hycyper

Hyderabad Chem. Ltd.

Lambda cyhalothrin

5 EC

Karate

Syngenta India Ltd.

Deltamethrin

11 EC

Decis

Bayer Crop Sciences

Bifenthrin

10 EC

Talstar

FMC India Pvt. Ltd.

Organophosphates

Profenphos

50 EC

Curecron

Syngenta India Ltd.

Quinolphos

25 EC

Celquin

Excel Crop Care Ltd.

Monocrotophos

36 SL

Monostar

UPL Ltd.

Chlorpyriphos

20 EC

Dursban

Dow Agro Sciences

Carbamates

Thiodicarb

75 WP

Larvin

Bayer Crop Sciences

 

Data analysis and interpretation of resistance levels

Larval mortality was recorded at 24, 48 and 72 h after treatment. The mortality was determined based on the failure of insect to move upon coordinated pronding. The corrected mortality (%) as per Abbott’s formula at 72 h after treatment was considered as end point for the assessment of toxicity of test insecticides (Fisk and Wright, 1992). Data were subjected for probit analysis (Finney, 1971) with SPSS statistical computer programme and R Studio to find out lethal concentrations. Cross-resistance among the insecticides was determined through pair wise correlation coefficients of log LC50 values of the common populations for each insecticide. Resistance ratio (RR) was worked based on ratio between LC50 of test strain and LC50 of SUS-L strain for each location and insecticide.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Synthetic pyrethroids resistance in H. armigera

The RCR strain recorded highest resistance with LC50 value of 121.63 ppm followed by KBG (102.73 ppm) and HVR (79.72 ppm) strains (Table II). The lowest resistance was observed in SMG (55.89 ppm). Hence resistance ratio was maximal for RCR (23.21 fold), KBG (19.60 fold) and HVR (17.87 fold) strains. Least resistance ratio was for SMG (10.65 fold) strain in cypermethrin. Similarly, in lambda cyhalothrin, deltamethrin and bifenthrin, the ultimate lethal concentration resistance ratio level was recorded for RCR (69.35, 128.47, 97.23 ppm and 14.18,24.95, and 26.12 fold), KBG (60.23, 106.46, 89.68 ppm and12.32,20.67,19.08 fold) strains respectively followed by HVR (45.77, 76.08 ppm and 9.3614.77 fold) in lambda cyhalothrin and deltamrthrin except bifenthrin in strain of GDG having lethal concentration 73.89 ppm and resistance ratio of 15.72 fold which has been noticed after the RCR and KBG strains and also the lethal concentration and resistance ratio was paramount in SMG strain 55.89, 25.29, 53.50, 57.8 ppm and 10.67, 5.17, 10.39, 12.30 fold respectively in lambda cyhalothrin, deltamethrin and bifenthrin (Table II).

Organophosphate resistance in H. armigera

The high resistance level was found with lethal concentration and resistance ratio in RCR strain (178.46 ppm and 14.05 fold) followed by KBG (156.80 ppm and 12.35 fold) and HVR (64.73 ppm and 5.10 fold) strains and the lowest resistance level was recorded in SMG (41.14 ppm and 3.24 fold) strain was noticed in profenphos as presented in Table III. Accordingly, monocrotophos and quinolphos showed resistance level of 18.23 fold and 12.05 fold with lethal concentration 160.94 and 138.00ppm, respectively observed in RCR strain followed by KBG strain 16.12 fold and 10.45 fold with the lethal concentration of 142.32 and 119.61 ppm, respectively, also SMG strain having resistance ratio of 5.22 fold and 2.86 fold with the lethal concentration of 32.76 and 46.10 ppm respect to both chemicals was significantly subordinate.

But in case of chloropyrphos DWD strain noticed surpassing resistance with the LC50 value 74.03 ppm and resistance ratio and 6.69 fold followed by HVR strain 69.66 ppm and 6.30 fold, respective lethal concentration and resistance level and significant inferior resistance ratio was found in KBG strain (5.07 fold) with the lethal concentration.

Carbamate resistance in H. armigera

Lethal concentration and resistance ratio for carbamate insecticide (Table IV) i.e. thiodicarb was maximum with the LC50 value 194.55 ppm in RCR strain followed by KBG (167.97 ppm) and HVR (94.17 ppm) strains. Least resistance was shown in KLR strain (33.28 ppm). Consequently, resistance ratio was highest for RCR (9.20 fold), KBG (7.94 fold) and HVR (3.15 fold) strains. Lowest resistance ratio was noticed for KLR (1.57 fold) strain.

 

Table II. Toxicity of synthetic pyrethroids insecticides against different strains of Helicoverpa armigera from various localities in Karnataka during 2016-17.

Places

LC50 (PPM)

FL 95%

LC90 (PPM)

SLOPE ± SE

RR

Cypermetrin

SUS-L

4.46

2.6-6.59

66.91

1.01 ± 0.16

-

HVR

79.72

65.99-97.67

280.73

2.34 ± 0.35

17.87

VJP

69.15

55.61-85.53

281.82

2.1 ± 0.33

13.20

DWD

70.92

57.65-86.89

269.47

2.21 ± 0.34

13.53

BLG

69.18

55.69-85.5

280.21

2.10 ± 0.33

13.20

SMG

55.89

43.2-69.23

237.16

2.04 ± 0.33

10.67

KLR

72.91

60.35-88.16

248.05

2.41 ± 0.35

13.91

RCR

121.63

100.87-148.93

430.56

2.14 ± 0.31

23.21

KBG

102.73

84.83-122.63

338.12

2.47 ± 0.31

19.60

GDG

67.01

53.76-82.63

271.34

2.11 ± 0.33

12.79

Lambda cyhalothrin

SUS-L

4.89

3.24-6.44

30.37

1.61 ± 0.25

-

HVR

45.77

37.76-57.59

167.83

2.27 ± 0.35

9.36

VJP

40.48

33.41-49.96

146.34

2.20 ± 0.34

8.28

DWD

39.76

32.16-49.75

186.71

2.09 ± 0.34

8.13

BLG

37.54

30.28-46.96

156.93

2.06 ± 0.33

7.68

SMG

25.29

19.05-31.35

108.26

2.029 ± 0.34

5.17

KLR

29.78

23.08-36.99

132.18

1.98 ± 0.33

6.09

RCR

69.35

56.88-88.36

272.85

2.15 ± 0.36

14.18

KBG

60.23

49.27-74.54

232.85

2.18 ± 0.37

12.32

GDG

38.77

31.36-48.67

161.61

2.06 ± 0.33

7.93

Deltamethrin

SUS-L

5.15

2.96-7.67

87.62

1.04 ± 0.16

-

HVR

76.08

60.22-95.44

343.02

1.65 ± 0.33

14.77

VJP

71.32

56.34-88.53

308.19

2.016 ± 0.33

13.85

DWD

73.97

59.62-90.79

289.88

2.16 ± 0.34

14.36

BLG

69.63

56.05-84.81

262.91

2.22 ± 0.34

13.52

SMG

53.50

39.78-66.57

233.04

2.00 ± 0.33

10.39

KLR

55.22

14.9-93.09

248.92

1.96 ± 0.33

10.72

RCR

128.47

105.44-157.92

481.61

2.23 ± 0.36

24.95

KBG

106.46

87.12-127.39

359.2

2.42 ± 0.37

20.67

GDG

69.52

55.67-85.06

270.43

2.17 ± 0.34

13.50

Bifenthrin

SUS-L

4.7

2.74-6.93

67.39

1.10 ± 0.16

-

HVR

78.89

63.7-99.54

334.67

2.04 ± 0.33

16.79

VJP

70.41

56.64-87.26

288.77

2.09 ± 0.33

14.98

DWD

72.72

58.55-90.59

302.63

2.06 ± 0.33

15.47

BLG

67.32

54.07-82.86

269.66

2.12 ± 0.33

14.32

SMG

57.81

44.69-71.65

251.85

2.00 ± 0.33

12.30

KLR

59.39

45.97-73.87

266.32

1.96 ± 0.33

12.64

RCR

97.23

77.21-118.55

381.54

2.15 ± 0.37

20.69

KBG

89.68

69.81-109.50

358.03

2.13 ± 0.37

19.08

GDG

73.89

59.73-91.93

301.36

2.09 ± 0.34

15.72

 

SUS-L, Lab Susceptible; HVR, Haveri; VJP, Vijayapur; DWD, Dharwad; BLG, Belagavi; SMG, Shivamoga; KLR, Kolar; RCR, Raichur; KBG, Kalburgi; GDG, Gadag.

 

Table III. Toxicity of organophosphates insecticides against different strains of H. armigera from various localities in Karnataka during 2016-17.

Places

LC50 (PPM)

FL 95%

LC90 (PPM)

SLOPE ± SE

RR

Profenphos

SUS-L

12.7

8.08-17.42

105.57

1.39 ± 0.20

-

HVR

64.73

37.01-97.34

951.25

1.09 ± 0.17

5.10

VJP

47.58

24.65-75.43

969.49

0.97 ± 0.16

3.75

DWD

57.83

33.34-87.84

930.55

1.06 ± 0.16

4.55

BLG

55.44

31.36-84.84

928.34

1.04 ± 0.16

4.37

SMG

41.14

21.58-65.30

810.26

0.99 ± 0.15

3.24

KLR

44.96

24.51-70.29

828.04

1.01 ± 0.15

3.54

RCR

178.46

110.88-252.58

1712.29

1.30 ± 0.20

14.05

KBG

156.8

95.22-223.30

1448.09

1.32 ± 0.20

12.35

GDG

54.73

30.44-84.42

971.87

1.02 ± 0.16

4.31

Chlorpyriphos

SUS-L

11.06

8.37-13.63

43.42

2.15 ± 0.33

-

HVR

69.66

42.75.-98.99

675.14

1.29 ± 0.20

6.30

VJP

67.95

41.54-96.63

651.65

1.30 ± 0.20

6.14

DWD

74.03

47.37-102.63

653.71

1.35 ± 0.21

6.69

BLG

64.26

39.26-90.75

589.99

1.33 ± 0.21

5.81

SMG

62.93

39.09-7.87.98

522.41

1.39 ± 0.22

5.69

KLR

61.11

37.57-85.79

512.56

1.38 ± 0.22

5.53

RCR

60.49

38.55-83.03

445.98

1.47 ± 0.23

5.47

KBG

56.06

35.31-77.25

406.23

1.49 ± 0.23

5.07

GDG

58.36

37.28-83.15

651.67

1.22 ± 0.20

5.28

Monocrotophos

SUS-L

8.83

5.41-12.32

81.91

1.32 ± 0.20

-

HVR

60.52

42.08-81.91

490.02

1.41 ± 0.24

6.85

VJP

47.26

32.47-62.8

313.71

1.55 ± 0.24

5.35

DWD

48.96

33.49-65.38

343.19

1.51 ± 0.24

5.54

BLG

46.78

31.7-62.57

326.12

1.52 ± 0.24

5.30

SMG

46.10

30.59-62.27

345.44

1.46 ± 0.24

5.22

KLR

73.94

55.59-96.91

448.17

1.60 ± 0.24

8.37

RCR

160.94

122.39-213.88

992.82

1.62 ± 0.27

18.23

KBG

142.32

106.49-187.45

895.32

1.60 ± 0.27

16.12

GDG

50.78

34.61-68.16

376.13

1.47 ± 0.24

5.75

Quinolphos

SUS-L

11.47

7.43-16.02

112.83

1.29 ± 0.21

-

HVR

75.57

50.59-102.95

607.38

1.41 ± 0.22

6.60

VJP

37.79

21.23-56.94

551.54

1.10 ± 0.18

3.30

DWD

39.90

22.47-60.24

612.09

1.08 ± 0.18

3.48

BLG

35.21

19.24-53.53

526.52

1.09 ± 0.18

3.08

SMG

32.76

18.51-48.56

390.35

1.19 ± 0.19

2.86

KLR

33.96

19.5-50.04

396.92

1.20 ± 0.19

2.97

RCR

138.00

164.43-250.93

728.05

2.36 ± 0.38

12.05

KBG

119.61

83.94-155.84

653.70

1.73 ± 0.26

10.45

GDG

36.06

20.38-54.03

488.71

1.13 ± 0.18

3.15

 

For abbreviations, see Table II.

 

Table IV. Toxicity of carbamate insecticides (Thiodicarb) against different strains of H. armigera from various localities in Karnataka during 2016-17.

Strain

LC50 (PPM)

FL 95%

LC90 (PPM)

Slope ± SE

RR

SUS-L

21.15

13.54-29.66

232.21

1.23 ± 0.17

-

HVR

94.17

61.06-133.03

965.29

1.26 ± 0.19

4.45

VJP

66.66

38.39-100.33

967.4

1.10 ± 0.17

3.15

DWD

62.43

35.4-94.42

906.29

1.10 ± 0.17

2.95

BLG

53.61

28-83.90

928.58

1.03 ± 0.17

2.53

SMG

49.08

26.63-75.11

673.08

1.12 ± 0.17

2.32

KLR

33.28

18.17-52.52

664.74

0.98 ± 0.15

1.57

RCR

194.55

136.22-256.31

1288.04

1.56 ± 0.40

9.20

KBG

167.97

118.05-217.89

942.04

1.71 ± 0.26

7.94

GDG

61.55

34.29-93.84

946.13

1.08 ± 0.17

2.91

 

For abbreviations, see Table II.

 

Cross resistance pattern

Pair-wise correlation comparisons of the log LC50s for the same insecticide across populations (Table V) could show positive significant correlations between each group of insecticides and all other group of insecticides except quinolphos. Positive correlation exists between cypermethrin to bifenthrin, monocrotopho, chlorpyriphos, thiodicarb. Significant positive correlation found between all group chemicals except quinolphos and cypermethrin. Thus each insecticide could have a cross-resistance to chemicals belonging to same group as well as other groups. However, the level of cross resistance was more prominent in OP, synthetic pyrethroids and carbamates. Concurrently negative correlation appeared between quinolphos and all other group of insecticides except monocrotophos.

DISCUSSION

Among nine strains the peak resistance level was noticed in RCR strain against cypermethrin (23.21fold), lambda cyhalothrin (14.18 fold), deltamethrin (24.95 fold) and bifenthrin (20.69 fold), it was followed by KBG and HVR strains. The least resistance was recorded in SMG, GDG, VJP and KLR strains to different pyrethroids. Likewise Basavangoud (1994) observed the highest level of cypermethrin (15.76 times) resistance was noticed in Sindhanur strain followed by Saundatti, Bijapur (presently called Vijayapur) and Mundagod. Even after two decades the resistance to cypermethrin has not declined clearly indicating its continued selection pressure. Hence same group of chemicals usage may cause the problem of cross resistance (Honnakerappa and Udikeri, 2018) on those locations where there was maximum resistance detected. Nonetheless the pattern of resistance was found varying much amongst high (Sindhanur/Raichur/Kalaburgi) and low (Mundagoda/ Shivamoga) pesticide usage. Upendhar (2012), Fakruddin et al. (2004) and Indira-Chaturvedi (2013) specifically perceived highest resistance in Raichur when they collected strains from Karntataka during their collections.

The ultimate resistance ratio was found to be in RCR strain against OPs viz., profenphos (14.05 fold), monocrotophos, (18.23 fold) and quinolphos (12.05 fold) due to higher lethal concentration values and it was followed by KBG and HVR strains. In such a way Patil (1993) study was evident long back in Karnataka to OPs sensitivity. Where there is a high pesticide pressure area required higher concentrations to kill both

 

Table V. Pairwise correlation coefficient comparisons of log LC50 values Helicoverpa armigera for different insecticides.

 Insecticides

Cyper-methrin

Lambda Cyhalothrin

Delta-methrin

Bifen-thrin

Pro-fenphos

Quinol-phos

Mono-crotophos

Chlor-pyriphos

Thio-dicarb

Cypermethrin

1

Lambda cyhalothrin

.211

1

Deltamethrin

-.073

.911**

1

Bifenthrin

.033

.934**

.934**

1

Profenphos

.283

.947**

.922**

.893**

1

Quinolphos

-.472

-.482

-.405

-.366

-.648

1

Monocrotophos

.216

.878**

.859**

.869**

.945**

-.771*

1

Chlorpyriphos

.012

.913**

.886**

.908**

.811**

-.186

.695*

1

Thiodicarb

-.041

.838**

.886**

.819**

.799**

-.089

.610

.883**

1

 

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

 

early and late instars of H. armigera like in pyrethroids. Further, Basavangoud (1994) also recorded highest level of resistance against monocrotophos (6.78 times) in Sindhanur strain. After couple of years again Kranthi et al. (2002) and Fakruddin et al. (2004) observed maximum resistance in the strain collected from south India.Thus a selection pressure based dynamics in resistance was evident through this study. The present finding is evident with observations of Indira-Chaturvedi (2013) for monocrotophos resistance where in his inference Raichur strain had high degree of resistance compared to Dharwad strain. Hence a gradual decrease in the levels of resistance to OPs and pyrethroids in H. armigera noticed in the present study in contrast to arecent reports (Indira-Chaturvedi, 2013) which may be probably due to minimized selection pressure with significant less in the use of organophosphates in the view of increase in area under Bt cotton and usage of newer chemicals which replaced conventional insecticides like OP and pyrethroids.

Thiodicarb resistance in RCR strain (9.20 fold) was highest followed by KBG (7.94 fold) and HVR (4.45 fold) strain (Fig. 2). The present finding is proximity with Fakrudin et al. (2004) who observed higher carbamate resistance (carbaryl) in Raichur populations recorded a maximum LD50 value to carbaryl (13.36 µg/µL) followed by Nalgonda, Guntur, Mysore and Dharwad populations. Further mythomyl resistance (Upendhar, 2012) was also high in Raichur than Nagpur which is another carbamate. The declining trend in carbamate resistance as observed in present study compared to previous reports may be due to decrease in their usage of this group of chemicals (Honnkaerappa and Udikeri, 2018) owing to newer chemicals and increased planting of Bt cottons.

 

 

The correlation analysis among different insecticides it clearly depicting cross resistance between intra group as well as intergroup insecticides (Fig. 2), however, the insecticides exclusively in synthetic pyrethroids, OP and carbamates showing high bright colour in pie chart implying significant cross resistance but most interestingly if we observed Figure 3 notably in quinolphos insecticide showing series of L shape light brown colourpies with little disparity exhibiting negative significant correlation in most of insecticides exclusively in OP, synthetic pyrethroid, carbamates. It clearly deciphers that can be explored in management of resistance. Insecticides betraying cross resistance in H. armigera were fetched from different parts of Karnataka may be dependence of farmers on similar group of insecticides especially in OP and synthetic pyrethroids among these group exclusively OPs (Honnkaerappa and Udikeri, 2018) because of cheaper cost and availability in local areas where the peak resistance noticed in locations under this study. So, comprehensibly stipulating that we should steer clear of using intra group as well as inter group of insecticides viz, pyrethroid, OP and carbamtes except quinolphos.

CONCLUSION

The resistance in gram podborer H. armigera to conventionally used synthetic pyrethroides, OPs and carbamates is still persisting and alarming especially in high pesticide usage areas. Due to existence of cross resistance careful selection of insecticides is essential in pulses, vegetables and conventional cotton to manage this pest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

HSB received graduate assistance fellowship from Directorate of Research, UAS, Dharwad.

Statement of conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

Ahmad, M., Arif, I.M. and Ahmad, Z., 1995. Monitoring insecticide resistance of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Pakistan. J. econ. Ent., 88: 771–776. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/88.4.771

Armes, N.J., Banerjee, S.K., De Souza, K.R., Jadhav, D.R., King, A.B.S., Kranthi, K.R., Regupathy, A., Surilivelu, T. and VenugopalRao, N., 1996. Insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armigera in India: Recent developments. Brighton Crop Protec. Conf. Pests Dis., pp. 437-442.

Basavangoud, K., 1994. Studies on insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in cotton. Ph.D. thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka, India.

Fakrudin, B., Patil, B.V., Prasad, P.R.B. and Prakash, S.H., 2004. Insecticide usage patterns in South Indian cotton ecosystems to control cotton bollworm. Helicoverpa armigera. Resistant. Pest. Mgt. Newsl., 12: 35-38.

Finney, D.J., 1972. Probit analysis. 3rd Edition. Cambridge University Press, UK.

Fisk, T. and Wright, D.J., 1992. Speed of action and toxicity of acylurea insect growth regulators against Spodoptera exempta (Walk.) and Spodoptera littoralis (Biosd.) larvae: Effect of inter moult age. Pestic. Sci., 35: 331-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.2780350407

Fitt, G.P., 1989. The ecology of Heliothis species in relation to agro ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ent., 34: 17-52. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.34.010189.000313

Gunning, R.V., Easton, C.S., Greenup, L.R. and Edge, V.E., 1984. Synthetic pyrethroid resistance in Heliothis armigera (Hu¨bner) in Australia. J. econ. Ent., 77: 1283–1287. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/77.5.1283

Honnakerappa, S.B. and Udikeri, S.S., 2018. Insecticide usage pattern against Helicoverpaarmigera (Hubner) in Karnataka State, India. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. appl. Sci., 7: 875-882. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.708.099

Indira Chaturvedi, 2013. A survey of insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armigera in central and South Indian cotton ecosystems. Int. J. Res. BioSci., 2: 37-43.

Kranthi, K.R., 2005. Insecticide resistance monitoring, mechanisms and management manual. Central Institute for Cotton Research, Nagpur, pp. 80-94.

Kranthi, K.R., Jadhav, D.R., Kranthi, S., Wanjari, R., Ali, S. and Russell, D.A., 2002. Insecticide resistance in five major insect pests of cotton in India. Crop Prot., 21: 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(01)00131-4

McCaffery, A.R., 1998. Resistance to insecticides in Heliothine Lepidoptera: A global view. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B, 353: 1735–1750. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1998.0326

Patil, B.V., 1993. Sensitivity of field collected Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) larvae to recommended insecticide on redgram. Pestol, 17: 19-21.

Pawar, C.S., Bhatnagar, V.S. and Jadhav, D.R., 1986. Heliothis species and their natural enemies with their potential for biological control. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci., 95: 697-703. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03179484

Prakash, M.R., Ram, U. and Tariq, A., 2007. Evaluation of chickpea (Cicerarietinum L.) germplasm for the resistance to gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera Hubner (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. entomol. Res., 31: 215-218.

Qayyum, M.A., Waqas, W., Muhammad, J.A., Shahbaz, T.S., Noor, A.S. and Derek, A.R., 2015. Multiple resistances against formulated organophosphates, pyrethroids, and newer-chemistry insecticides in populations of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) from Pakistan. J. econ. Ent., pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tou037

Rafiee, D.H., Hejazi, M.J., Nouri, G.G. and Saber, M., 2008. Toxicity of some biorational and conventional insecticides to cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and its ectoparasitoid, Habrobracon hebetor (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). J. Entomol. Soc. Iran, 28: 27-37.

Rahman, M.M., 1989. Evaluation of different indices for developing an insecticide application schedule against Euchrysops cnejus Fab. infesting mung bean. 14th Bangladesh Science Conference, Abstract Section I, pp. 84.

Rai, M., Acharya, S.S., Virmani, S.M. and Aggrawal, P.K., 2009. State of India Agriculture. National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi.

Ramasubramanian, T. and Regupathy, A., 2004. Magnitude and mechanism of insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armigera hub. Population of Tamil Nadu, India. Asian J. Pl. Sci., 3: 94–100. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2004.94.100

Rao, K.P., Sudhakar, K. and Krishnaiah, K.R., 2001. Seasonal incidence and host preference of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Indian J. Pl. Protec., 29: 152-153.

Reed, W. and Pawar, C.S., 1982. Heliothis: A global problem. In: Proceedings of International Workshop on Heliothis Management (eds. W. Reed and V. Kumble), 15–20 November 1981. ICRISAT, Patancheru, pp. 9–14.

Singh, H. and Singh, G., 1975. Biological studies on Heliothis armigera (Hubner) in Punjab. Indian J. Ent., 37: 154-164.

Tabashnik, B.E., Mota-Sanchez, D., Whalon, M.E., Hollingworth, R.M., Carrière, Y., 2014. Defining terms forproactive management of resistance to bt crops and pesticides. J. econ. Ent., 107: 496–507. https://doi.org/10.1603/EC13458

Torres-Vila, L.M., Rodríguez-Molina, M.C., Lacasa-Plasencia, A. and Bielza-Lino, P., 2002. Insecticide resistance of Helicoverpa armigera to endosulfan, carbamates and organophosphates: The Spanish case. Crop Prot., 21: 1003–1013. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(02)00081-9

Upendhar, S., 2012. Characterization of insecticide resistant Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) to study the molecular association of cross resistance patterns. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agric. Univ. Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, India.

To share on other social networks, click on any share button. What are these?

Pakistan Journal of Zoology

August

Vol. 54, Iss. 4, Pages 1501-2001

Featuring

Click here for more

Subscribe Today

Receive free updates on new articles, opportunities and benefits


Subscribe Unsubscribe