Research Article

Comparative Biocidal Potentials of Some Synthetic Insecticides against Maize Stem Borer, Chilopartellus (Swinhoe) under Field Conditions

Qurban Ali1, Habib-ur-Rehman2, Muhammad Abdullah3, Asad Aslam1*, Muti Ullah4, Ali Sher5, Muhammad Faheem Akhtar1, Humaira Malik1, Muhammad Umar Qasim1, Muhammad Yasir6, Ijaz Haider1, Tamsila Nazir1 and Muhammad Jawad Saleem1

1Entomological Research Institute, ARRI, Faisalabad, Pakistan; 2Water Management Research Farm, Okara, Pakistan; 3Soil and Water Testing Laboratory, Jhang, Pakistan; 4Date Palm Research Sub-Station, Jhang, Pakistan; 5Cotton Research Sub-Station, Jhang, Pakistan; 6Pest Warning and Quality Control of Pesticides, Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.

Received | April 27, 2022; Accepted | June 09, 2022; Published | June 28, 2022

*Correspondence | Asad Aslam, Entomological Research Institute, ARRI, Faisalabad, Pakistan; Email: [email protected]

Citation | Ali, Q., H. Rehman, M. Abdullah, A. Aslam, M. Ullah, A. Sher, M.F. Akhtar, H. Malik, M.U. Qasim, M. Yasir, I. Haider, T. Nazir and M.J. Saleem. 2022. Comparative biocidal potentials of some synthetic insecticides against maize stem borer, chilopartellus (Swinhoe) under field conditions. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research, 35(2): 442-448.

DOI | https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjar/2022/35.2.442.448

Keywords | Benefit-cost ratio, Monetary, Integrated pest management, Supplementary yield, Gross profit

Copyright: 2022 by the authors. Licensee ResearchersLinks Ltd, England, UK.

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

Maize (Zea mays L.) the highest yielding cereal crop worldwide, is of prime significance for countries in Pakistan, where the rapidly snowballing population has now outstripped the existing food deliveries. After rice and wheat, maize ranks as the 3rd most significant cereal. Maize accounts for 4.8% of the entire cultivated area and 3.5% of the value added to agricultural production. It is being sown on an assessed area of 0.9 million hectares witha yearly yield of 1.3 million tons (Khan et al., 2021). It can be grown in nearly every proper agro-ecological area throughout the world at varying degrees of achievement. Due to its highest yielding potential among all the cereals, maize is referred to as the “Queen of cereals” (Sharma and Gauta, 2010; Ali et al., 2014). Like other cereal crops, maize is also liable to a broad range of biotic andabiotic factors, the occurrence of insect pests being one of them (Shakoor et al., 2017; Ali et al., 2021). Among the numerous insect pests, maize stem borer, ChilopartellusSwinhoe (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) is an important pest,resulting in 90-95 % of the entire injury in the Kharif season (Jalali and Singh, 2002). It is among the main biotic constraints on the fruitful production of sorghum and maize throughout the world,predominantly in Africa and Asia (Arabjafari and Jalali, 2007). C. partellus caused 10-50 percent of damage in the Peshawar valley (Farid et al., 2007). Infestation of the insect pest is recognized by window panes and pinholes. The crop fails entirely owing to the austere attack of this insect pest at the early growing stages and finally at the post-harvest stage (Sarwar, 2012; Vishvendra et al., 2017).

For the effective control of C. partellus, the use of operative chemicals with a diverse mode of action at the appropriate stageof the crop stage is important (Samantha et al., 2007; Khan et al., 2015) but the main problem is resistance development against insecticides (Khawar et al., 2020) and some time pest skip from the intact with insecticide due to weeds in the field (Munir et al., 2020). Intelligent use of combined diversified insecticides reinforces theinsecticide resistance management approach (Sparks et al., 2001; Akob and Ewete, 2007; Qiao et al., 2007). Therefore practical demonstration of such promising toolsforinsect pest management in farmers’ fields and economic evaluation of dissimilar insecticidal treatment is essential (Cugala et al., 2006; Bhandari et al., 2016) A wide range of insecticide chemistries and preparations have been used to control this insect pest (Saeed et al., 2006). Liquid and granular type of insecticides have been found effective against C. partellus (Khan et al., 2020). Granular formulations of carbofuran and chlorpyriphos were described as operative against the pest by Bhat and Baba (2007). Ahmad et al. (2002) assessed found few bio-insecticides very effective against, C. partellus (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Use of endosulfan and carbofuran as seed protectants with has been described as useful for the control of the pest (Mashwani et al., 2015). The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and resistance of innovative chemicals in the market against the pest on a consistent basis and used integrated pest management of Chilopartellus(s).

Keeping in view, the present research trials were planned to probe the toxic impacts of some formulations of insecticides for the control of C. partellus.

Materials and Methods

The relative efficacy of the below-mentioned insecticides as the granular and foliar application was ascertained under field conditions in RCBD design at Water Management Research Farm, Renala Khurd, Okara, Pakistan.

 

Table 1: Treatments descriptions.

Treatments	Treatment description	Dose rate
1	Chlorpyriphos 40EC	500ml acre-1
2	Padan®3G –Cartap	9 kg acre-1
3	Carbofuran 3 G	8 kg acre-1
4	Monomehypo®- 5G	7 kg acre-1
5	Fipronil 0.3% G	8 kg acre-1
6	Control	--

 

There were six treatments in total (Table 1) and each treatment was replicated three times. The maize variety DKL-30T60 was cultivated as an examination crop. The plant-to-plant and row to row distance were maintained at 60×25 cm in a plot dimension of 4×3 m2. The recommended doses of the insecticides were applied by knapsack sprayer (in case of SC formulation) and physically with hands. All the crop-growing practices were trailed to sustain good crop growth and no insecticides other than those comprised in the experiment were applied.Irrigation was done using a cut-throat flume to avoid water losses. The first application was done 15 days afterward, sowing as a foliar spray in all treatments. whereas the second application was done 30 days after sowing. In these applications, T4 is used as spray while, treatments T1, T2, T3, and T5 were used in granular form as whorl applications. Insect-affected plants and dead hearts were monitored by visually counting ten randomly selected plants from each plot (i.e. from the four central rows of each experimental plot) on a weekly basis from July until the middle of September when they had nearly disappeared from the crop field (Zulfiqar et al., 2010). The results thus attained were combined together to get an average plant infestation instigated by C. partellus. Based on these notes, the average plant attack and dead heart were computed.

Treatment impact on insect pest attack was further found using the formula (Kamala et al., 2012).

The average percent reduction in plant infestation/dead heart reduction over control was computed as under.

Where;

P1= dead heart/ plant infestation in the control plot; P2....P6= dead heart/ plant infestation/in treated plot.

Afterward harvesting of the crop, seed produce was noted from each plot and transformed in to quintal ha-1. The supplementary yield over the control plot was too computed for appraisal of yield performance of diverse treatments by means of the following formula:

Where;

Y1= seeds producedin control, Y2....Y6= seeds produced in treated plots.

The cost-benefit (C:B) ratio was computed by keeping in mind the prevalent market price of spraying cost, insecticides and maize benefit-costs ratio was computed as follows.

Results and Discussion

The present research work was executed to probe the toxic effects of some granular insecticides and a liquid formulation against Chilopartellus. The results of the mean plant infestation (%) in maize caused by C. partellus (Table 2) revealed notable differences between the altered treatments under investigation. The average plant infestation (%) caused by C. partellus ranged from 5.23 to 40.51%. The highest infestation (40.51 %) was observed in the control plot, trailed by (18.10 %) Fipronil, 0.3% Gplotstrailed by Carbofuran 3G (15.34 %) while the lowest (5.23 %) was recorded in Chlorpyriphos 40EC treated plot, being the most effective among all. In the case of mean reduction data over control, the identical trend of relative effectiveness was recorded i.e. the highest reduction in plant infestation (96.08%) and dead hearts (93.65%) noticed in the case of Chlorpyriphos 40EC. Overall, the results revealed that all insecticidal treatments maintained their superiority over the control experimental plot in decreasing C. partellu infestations, though this varied significantly among themselves. Numerous researchersevaluated the effectiveness of many insecticides used as granular and foliar applications against C. partellus on maize diverse maize-growing parts of the world (Ahmad et al., 2002; Jalali and Singh, 2002; Anuradha et al., 2010; Kulkarni et al., 2015; Kumar and Kumar, 2017). Among the many insecticides studied in this study, the data obtained with Monomehypo 5G is roughly comparable to that obtained by Kulkarni et al. (2015) and Kumar and Alam (2017). Results of current research work depicted that 7.23% mean plant infestation was noted in plot treated with Monomehypo®-5G assupported by Kumar and Alam (2017) i.e. 10.60% mean infestation in the treated plot. A slight difference in value may be due to different levels of application. The results of my research work are different from the results ofa few research workers as well. Khan et al. (2020) described that granular insecticide carbofuran 3G was noticed as the most effective amongst all tested insecticides while in my research work, Chlorpyriphos 40EC was superior ineffectiveness against C. partellus. Singh et al. (2014) found that cypermethrin was highly effective against C. partellus.

The highest mean reduction of plant infestation and dead hearts (96.08%) was observed in experimental plots treated with Chlorpyriphos 40EC, followed by 92.67% (Monomehypo®-5G), 86.10% (Padan®3G-Cartap), and 80.52% (Carbofuran 3 G), while the lowest most reduction, i.e., 55.12%, was observed in plots treated with Fipronil 0.3% G (Table 2). Results (Figure 1) demonstrated C. partellus infestation was highest (86.14%) in untreatheted plot (control)

 

Table 2: Impact of different insecticides on mean infestation resulted by Chilopartellus in the whole period of maize crop.

Treatments	Mean(%) infestation	Mean (%) dead heart	Mean reduction over control
			Plant infestation	Dead heart
Fipronil 0.3% G	18.10 (27.56)	11.78 (17.45)	55.12 e	41.78 e
Carbofuran 3 G	15.34 (24.06)	8.12 (10.57)	80.52 d	73.94 d
Padan®3G –Cartap	10.45 (18.89)	6.29 (13.35)	86.10 c	78.56 c
Monomehypo®–5G	8.67 (12.40)	3.10 (11.24)	92.67 b	89.47 b
Chlorpyriphos 40EC	5.23 (10.90)	1.12 (4.79)	96.08 a	93.15a
Control	40.51 (50.17)	17.42 (23.59)	-	-
S.E.m (±)	(2.89)	(2.32)
C.D. (P=0.05)	(2.26)	(1.16)

*CD= critical difference; S.E.m= standard error of mean; values in parenthesis are of angular alteration; Treatments means were significant (P<0.05) at significance level=5%.

 

Table 3: Cost-benefit analysis of insecticides used as crop protectant.

Treatments	Yield (q/ha)	Supplementary yield (Rs/ha)	Price of supplementary yield (Rs/ha)	Cost of treatment (Rs/ha)	Benefit	B:C
Fipronil 0.3% G	23.0	8.92	11265.1	1805	9572.4	5.30:1
Carbofuran 3 G	27.98	12.87	17645.6	1710	15526.4	9.07:1
Padan®3G –Cartap	30.2	15.7	21564	2420	19706	8.14:1
Monomehypo®–5G	37	22.1	30264.2	3165	27421.6	8.66:1
Chlorpyriphos 40EC	46	31.2	42876.3	2906	36416.2	12.53:1
Control	15.20	-	-	-	-	-

 

at the end of August compared to treated plots. Among the treatments, the relatively highest percent infestation (41.69%) was recorded in fiprfipronil-treatedts trailed by Carbofuran (36.78%), Padan®3G –Cartap (28.64%), Monomehypo®–5G (17.09%) while Chlorpyriphos 40EC proved the most effective (4.8%) at the end of last week of August.

 

Data (Figure 2) displayed mean infestation values of C. partellus during the study months. The highest mean infestation (72.11%) was noted in control during the peak population month (i.e. August), trailed by September (59.11%) while the relatively low (8.52%) was recorded in the month of July. In treated plots, highest mean monthly infestation during the three months was noted infipronil treated plots, whereas the relatively lowermost was observed in Chlorpyirfos 0.6% G treated plots in the three months. Similarly, Hemerik et al. (2004) conducted research on aphid incidence on crops and noted an increased population trend with decrease in temperature as was observed in my study. While Tefera et al. (2011) described the development of post harvest insect pest attacks on maize crop temperature and humidity increases. The findings of Haq et al. (2018) also coincide with our current research suggesting that Chlorpyrifos have strong biocidal potential against maize stem borer

 

 

Table 4: Mean seasonal occurrence of Chilopartellusinfestation during the study period.

Date	Insect population (%)	Meteorological data
		Mean temperature (ºC)	Main relative humidity (%)
15-7-2020	7.12	37.4	62.1
30-7-2020	9.35	38.0	64.3
15-8-2020	15.56	41.6	65.5
30-8-2020	17.10	42.1	67.1
15-9-2020	9.87	36.3	52.7

 

The highest population, 17.10%, was observed at 42.1 oC and 67.1% relative humidity (R:H), while the lowest population, 7.12%, was observed at 37.4oC and 62.1% r.h. The highest infestation, 20%, was noted at a temperature of 33.2oC and relative humidity of 50% (Table 4). Zulfiqar et al. (2010) conducted research on assessing the population dynamics and noted an upsurge in the C. partellus population as the temperature decreased, similar as to what was observed in my research work. Resultswere confirmed by Barbiani (2003), who examined the population dynamics on different maize varieties and noted increased population incidence as the temperature decreased at the end of September. Similarly, Shelton and Badenes (2006) also gave similar results on the development of natural aenemiesies and insepestsest of the maize crop. However, the values of insect pest infestations were different, which may be due to differences in insect species compared to my study.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Among the tested insecticides against C. partellus in the study, Chlorpyriphoshas been found most effective of all the tested insecticides in term of density reduction and decline in percent infestation of crop. Furthermore it can be concluded that Chlorpyriphos 40EC and Monomehypo®–5G can abridge the C. partellus population density in An eco-friendly way as well as the probability of resistance development in an insect.

Novelty Statement

The experimental results predicted that the population of the C. partellus can be effectively controlled by the integration of Chlorpyriphos 40%EC into the Integrated Pest Management program.

Author’s Contribution

QA: design and supervises the trial.

MA, MU and AA: Execute the trial.

MFA, MUQ, and HR: Wrote the research article.

IH and AA: Statistical analyzed the data.

MY: Provided helpful material for experiment.

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interests.

References

Ahmad, S., A. Mushtaq and I. Rauf. 2002. Field efficacy of some bio-insecticides against maize and jowar stem borer, Chilopartellus (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Int. J. Agric. Biol., 4: 332–334.

Akob, C.A. and F.K. Ewete. 2007. The efficacy of ashes of four locally used plant materials against maize stem borer in Cameroon. Int. J. Insect Sci., 27: 21-26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742758407699615

Ali, N., G. Singh, S.P. Singh, S.S. Dhaka, M. Ram and K.B. Tawar. 2014. Efficacy of different management practices against Chilopartellus (Swinhoe) in Kharif maize in Western Uttar Pradesh. Int. J. Adv. Res., 2: 952-956.

Ali, Q., M.F. Akhtar, A. Aslam, M. Shehzad, M. Jamal, H. Malik, I. Nadeem, A. Abbas, M.J. Saleem, T. Nazir and K. Hanif. 2021. Host plant resistance, physio-morphic character and screening of chickpea pod borer Helicoverpaarmigera (Hübner). J. Innov. Sci., 7(2): 312-317. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.jis/2021/7.2.312.217

Anuraadha M., D. Sreelatha and J.C. Sekhar. 2010. Management of Maize Stem borer, Chilopartellus throught intercroping with sowpea. I. J. Plant Preot., 38(2): 202-203.

Arabjafari, K. and Jalali, S., 2007. Identification and analysisof host plant resistance in leading maize genotypes againstspotted stem borer, Chilopartellus (Swinhoe) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 10(11): 1885-1895. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2007.1885.1895

Barbiani, G., 2003. High temperature and drought reduce many maize pests in Friuli. Notiziar Ersa., 16: 8-15.

Bhandari, G., B.B. Achhami, S. Neupane and S.D. Sharma. 2016. Differential resistance reaction of maize genotypes to maize stem borer (Chilopartellus Swinhoe) at Chitwan, Nepal. J. Maize Res. Dev., 23: 133-143. https://doi.org/10.3126/jmrd.v2i1.16226

Bhat, Z.H. and Z.A. Baba. 2007. Efficacy of different insecticides against maize stem borer Chilopartellus (Swinhoe) and maize aphid Rhopalosiphummaidis (fitch) infesting maize. Pakentomology, 12: 57-61.

Cugala, D., F. Schulthess and C.P.O. Ogol. 2006. Assessment of the impact of natural enemies on stem borer infestation and yield loss in maize using selected insecticides in Mozambique. Ann. Soc. Entomol. Fr., 42: 503-510. https://doi.org/10.1080/00379271.2006.10697485

Farid, A., M.I.N. Khan, A. Khan, S.U.K. Khattak, Alamzeb and A. Sattar. 2007. Studies on maize stem borer, Chilopartellus in Peshawar valley. Pak. J. Zool., 39: 127-131.

Haq, I., S. Sattar, B. Ahmed, Q. Zeb and A. Usman. 2018. Compatibility of chemical and biological control for the management of maize stem borer, Chilo Partellus, (Swinhoe) (Lepidoptera; Pyralidae). Sarhad J. Agric., 34(4): 904-911. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.sja/2018/34.4.896.903

Hemerik, L., C. Busstra and P. Mols. 2004. Predicating the temperature-dependent natural population expansion of the western corn rootworm. Entomol. Exp. Appl., 111: 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-8703.2004.00150.x

Jalali, S.K. and S.P. Singh. 2002. Seasonal activity of stem borers and their natural enemies on fodder maize. Entomology, 27: 137-146.

Kamala, V., H.C. Sharma, D.M. Rao, K.S. Varaprasad, P.J. Bramel, and S. Chandra. 2012. Interactions of spotted stem borer Chilopartellus with wild relatives of sorghum. Plant Breed, 131(4): 511-521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.2012.01966.x

Khan, I.U., M. Nawaz, F. Said and K. Sohail. 2015. Integrated pest management of maize stem borer, Chilopartellus (Swinhoe) in maize crop and its impact on yield. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud., 3: 470-472.

Khan, Z., Q. Ain, A. Raqib, M.S. Khan and L. Xing. 2020. Effectiveness of granular and liquid insecticides against Chilopartellus on Maize in Pakistan. Pol. J. Environ. Stud., 29: 641-651. https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/102627

Khan, I., H. Lei, A. Khan, I. Muhammad, T. Javeed, A. Khan and X. Huo. 2021. Yield gap analysis of major food crops in Pakistan: prospects for food security. Environ. Sci. Pollut Res., 28(7):7994-8011.

Khawar, J.A., D. Hussain, K. Hanif, Q. Ali, M. Munir, F. Hafeez, M. Zubair, A. Aslam, M.J. Saleem, M. Akram, M.K. Malik, I. Ali and M.A. Ayub. 2020. Monitoring of insecticide resistance against cotton whitefly (BemesiaTabaci) under laboratory conditions. Life. Sci. J., 17(8): 1-5.

Kulkarni, S., C.P. Mallapur and R.A. Balikai. 2015. Bioefficacy of insecticides against maize stem borers. J. Exp. Zool., 18(1): 233–236.

Kumar, A., and A. Kumar. 2017. Field efficacy of seven insecticides against Chilopartellus (Swinhoe) on maize (Zea mays L.) in Allahabad. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud., 5: 46-48.

Kumar, R. and T. Alam. 2017. Bio-efficacy of some newer insecticides against maize stem borer, Chilopartellus (Swinhoe). J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem., 7: 15-20.

Mashwani, M.A., F. Ullah, S. Ahmad, K. Sohail, S.F. Shah and M. Usman. 2015. Infestation of maize stem borer, Chilopartellus (Swinhoe) in maize stubbles and stalks. J. Biol. Environ. Sci., 7: 180-185.

Munir, I., A. Ghaffar, A. Aslam, M.K. Shahzad and M. Jafir. 2020. Impact of weeds on diversity of soil arthropods in bt cotton fields in Faisalabad Pakistan. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res., 26(1): 119-129. https://doi.org/10.28941/pjwsr.v26i1.807

Patel, J.R., H.S.Varma, and Y.A. Shinde. 2016. Population dynamics of maize stem borer, Chilopartellus and its natural enemies. Indian J. Entomol., 78(2): 126-128. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-8172.2016.00041.9

Qiao, M., E. Daniel, J.M. Snyder, G.Z. Alan, J.G. Sonya, R.C. Larry, L.S. Robyn and R.Y. Davide. 2007. Preliminary Studies on the effectiveness of the novel pulicide, spinosad, for the treatment and control of fleas on dogs. Vet. Parasitol., 150: 345-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2007.09.011

Saeed, M.Q., U.R. Anis, J. Noora and A. Farhad. 2006. Evaluation of different insecticides against maize stem borer, Chilopartellasin Peshawar Valley. Sarhad J. Agric., 22: 117-120.

Samantha, M., C. Zeyaur, R. Khan and A.R. John. 2007. The use of push-pull strategies in integrated pest management. Ann. Rev. Entomol., 52: 375-400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.52.110405.091407

Sarwar, M., 2012. Management of rice stem borers (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) through host plant resistance in early, medium and late plantings of rice (Oryza sativa L.). J. Cereals Oilseeds, 3: 10-14.

Shakoor, U., M. Rashid, A. Saboor, N. Khurshid, Z. Husnain and A. Rehman. 2017. Maize production response to climate change in Pakistan: A time series assessment. Sarhad J. Agric., 33: 320-330. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.sja/2017/33.2.320.330

Sharma, P.N. and P. Gautam. 2010. Assessment of yield loss in maize due to attack by the maize borer, Chilopartellus (Swinhoe). Nepal J. Sci. Technol., 11: 25-30. https://doi.org/10.3126/njst.v11i0.4085

Shelton, A.M. and F.R. Badenes. 2006. Concepts and applications of trap cropping in pest management. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 51: 285-308. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.150959

Singh, A., A. Kumar, A. Dwivedi and P.K. Mishra. 2014. Management of stem borer, Chilopartellus (Swinhoe) on maize crop. Prog. Res., 9: 284-286.

Sparks, T., D.C. Gary and D. Gregory. 2001. Natural products as insecticides: The biology, biochemistry and quantitative structure-activity relationships of spinosyns and spinosoids. Pest Manage. Sci., 57: 896-899. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.358

Tefera, T., S. Mugo, R. Tende and O. Likhayo. 2011. Methods of screening maize for resistance to stem borers and post-harvest insect pests. CIMMYT. Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 1-30.

Vishvendra, D.V., S. Kumar, R. Kumar and V. Vaibhav. 2017. Screening of maize cultivars against maize stem borer Chilopartellus (Swinhoe), under natural field condition. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci., 6(10): 1414.

Zulfiqar, M.A., M.A. Sabri, M.A. Raza, A. Hamza, A. Hayat and A. Khan. 2010. Effect of temperature and relative humidity on the population dynamics of some insect pests of maize. Pak. J. Life Soc. Sci., 8: 16-18.