J. Inst. Agric. Anim. Sci.

31: 1 -16 (2010) 1

Review Article
INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF BRINJAL FRUIT AND SHOOT BORER, Leucinodes
orbonalis GUEN. : AN OVERVIEW

R. B. Thapa
Institute of Agriculture and Animal Sciences, Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal

ABSTRACT
Brinjal (Solanum melongena L.) is economically one of the most important vegetables in South Asia
and is commonly grown in Nepal. It is considered as the poor man’s crop, but its production is limited
mainly because of insect pests that cause significant damage. Especially brinjal fruit and shoot borer,
Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee is becoming one of the major devastating insects for quality fruit
production; yield loss due to L. orbonalis has been recorded up to 70%. Entomological research program
in Nepal also has recognized this problem as national priority. This articles overviews all eco-friendly
practices of the pest with the least adverse effect on human health and environment while considering
safe and healthy brinjal production.
Key words: Brinjal, integrated pest management (IPM), fruit and shoot borer

INTRODUCTION
Brinjal or eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) is a solanaceous vegetable commonly grown in Nepal,
India and other parts of the world. The world production of brinjal increased from 3.48 million ton in 1969-
71 to 8.68 million ton in 1992. Asia (751000 t/year), Europe (535000 t/year) and Africa (53200 t/year) are the
highest producers in the world. At present, the global area under brinjal cultivation has been estimated to be
more than two million ha with total production of brinjal fruit of about 33 million tons (FAO, 2007). It is
grown year round in almost all parts of Nepal except in higher altitudes, and it covers about 4.11% of vegetable
area with a contribution of 4.32% of total vegetable production. This vegetable is grown as winter crop in the
terai and as summer and rainy crop in the hills, and possesses special significance among vegetables because
of its availability throughout the year (Pun and Karmacharya, 1998). Vegetable being a vital component of
daily diet, their demand is increasing, but their production is limited mainly because of insect pests that cause
significant damage. Therefore, pertinent literature were gleaned and overviews prepared for the management
of the borer pest of this crop.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Necessary information related to the management of brinjal, or eggplant (Solanum melongena L.)
were collected from the available literature, covering problem identification, significance of the pest, pest
biology, and integrated pest management including various management measures. Relevant information
were arranged systematically. Findings are summarized in tables and briefed in texts with conclusive outline
of the pest management.
INSECT PEST PROBLEMS
Problem Identification: Insect pests produce both general and specific symptoms after infesting plants.
Based on these symptoms, problem and causal agents are identified to be specific to see the reality of the
problem associated with this plant (Table 1).
Thirteen different insect pests have been reported in brinjal from Nepal, where shoot and fruit borer
has been identified as the most destructive insect pest (Neupane, 1993; NARC, 1999; AVRDC, 1994; Joshi,
2003). Under field observation at IAAS, fruit and shoot borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee), leaf roller
(Antaba =Eublemma olivacea (Walker), jassids (Amrasca biguttula biguttula Ishida), Epilachna beetle
(Henosepilachna vigintiopunctata (Feb.), thrips (Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood), tobacco caterpillar
 Inst. J. Agric. Anim. Sci. 31-32:(2010-2011) 2

litura Walker), aphids (Aphis gossypii Walker), flea beetle (Phyllotreta spp.) and grasshopper
(Acrida saltata) were observed attacking brinjal plant. Among them, fruit and shoot borer was the most
devastating one.
Table 1. Tabular key to insect pest problem identification
Affected parts Specific symptoms Real cause
Fruit Hole in fruit or fruit stalk Fruit and shoot borer
Shoot Wilting of a shoot rest healthy Fruit and shoot borer
Entire plant Deformation of leaf/shoot Aphids
Leaf Wrinkled, small; Brown black sticky layer Aphids
Entire plant Plants turn yellow & wilt White fly
Leaf Brown black sticky layer White fly
Fruit Surface speckled with brown patches underside Thrips
Leaf Leaf silvery appearance and may be stunted Thrips
Leaf Leaf small & mosaic pattern, edge yellowing Jassids
Leaf Leaf scraped, thin layer left like window Epilachna beetle
Leaf Rolled leaf lengthwise, may be brown and dry Leaf roller
Leaf Silvery in color usually along the veins Red spider mite
Source : Praasterink (2003)
Pest incidence : All stages of brinjal- seedling to fruit harvest are damaged by pests (Table 2). Therefore,
it is necessary to pay attention to all elements of agro-ecosystem to identify problem.
Table 2. Susceptibility of crop stage to brinjal insect pests
Crop pest Crop stage
Seedling Early vegetative Late vegetative Flowering Fruiting
Borer- Leucinodes orbonalis X X X X X
Beetle- Epilachna beetles X X
Aphid- Aphis gossypii X X
Moth- Amrasca devastans X X X
Mite- Tetranychus telarius X X
Thrip- Thrips palmi X X
Hawk Moth- Acherontia styx X
Cricket- Gryllus sp X
Moth- Solenopsis geminata X X
Source : Praasterink (2003)
Loss assessment : Ghimire et al. (2007) surveyed in farmers field and observed the highest yield loss
(29–37 %) in rainy season (June- August) and the lowest yield loss (5%) during winter (October-
November) in Dhading and winter to spring (November- February) in Chitwan. Still higher infestation of
50-75% was experienced by Hada et al. (2008) in Bankey district of Nepal. Similarly, fruit damage
ranged 49.91-81.29% in eastern terai during 2005/06 (Thapa et al., 2009). Usually, low incidence periods
are recognized as safe period for growing brinjal in Chitwan and Dhading (Figure 1).

40

35
D h a d in g
30 C h it w a n
Yield loss (%)

25

20

15

10

0
May

Oct
Mar

Jul
Apr
Jan

Feb

Jun

Aug

Sep

Dec
Nov

M o n th

Figure 1. Yield loss due to L. orbonalis in Dhading and Chitwan (2001)

J. Inst. Agric. Anim. Sci. 31: 1 -16 (2010) 3

(Spodoptera Significance of the pest: Brinjal fruit and shoot borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee is becoming
one of the major devastating insect for quality fruit production and attacks brinjal crop irrespective to growth
stages of plant unlike other pests (see Table). It is considered as a destructive pest in all countries of Asia
except in Indonesia and Malaysia. Continuous cropping of brinjal and potato causes heavy infestation of L.
orbonalis (Butani and Jotwani, 1984). The insect, L. orbonalis of brinjal is most important in Nepal, India,
Pakistan, Srilanka, Bangladesh, Thailand, Philippines, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam (AVRDC, 1994) (Table
3). Current world losses to all pest types are estimated at about 35% of harvest potential due to weeds,
microorganisms and arthropods (Thapa, 1997). However, the loss of yield due to L. orbonalis has been
recorded more than 80% in brinjal (Thapa et al., 2009). Kumar and Sadashiva (1996) recorded the incidence
up to 50%. Tripathi et al. (1996) recorded up to 52.3% fruit damage in India. Roy and Pande (1994) recorded
20.2% losses in March-June and 22.9% in September. Rasco (1998) considered L. orbonalis as most destructive
pest than defoliators and leaf sucking insect of brinjal. The pest infestation coincided with the onset of flowering
stage and appeared peak during fruiting (Alpuerto, 1994), i.e. 10-11weeks after transplanting, which continued
up to 21 weeks after transplanting with the highest fruit damage in June, July, October (67.1%), November to
March (48.32%) and April to June (32.93%).

Table 3. Importance of borer insect pest of brinjal in Asia

Country Priority Pests
Pakistan 1 Borer- Leucinodes orbonalis
India 1 Borer- Leucinodes orbonalis
Srlanka 1 Borer- Leucinodes orbonalis
Nepal 1 Borer- Leucinodes orbonalis
Bangladesh 1 Borer- Leucinodes orbonalis
Thailand 1 Borer- Leucinodes orbonalis
Malaysia 1 Thrip- Thrips palmi
Indonesia 1 Beetle- Epilachna beetles
Philippines 1 Borer- Leucinodes orbonalis
Cambodia 1 Borer- Leucinodes orbonalis
Laos 1 Borer- Leucinodes orbonalis
Vietnam 1 Borer- Leucinodes orbonalis
Source : AVRDC (1994)
The infested fruit become unfit for human consumption and in severe cases cause rotting. Moreover,
Ratul (1986) reported that borer infested fruit were deficient in vitamin C (ascorbic acid) by 68%. Larvae
attack almost all parts of the plants; shoot infestation in young plant part including petiole and midrib of large
leaves (Alpuerto, 1994; Fasih et al., 1989). Alpuerto (1994) recorded higher percentage of the larvae in fruit
followed by shoots, flowers and other parts like flower buds and stem/ petiole/ midribs etc. Larvae bore into
fruit buds and fruit entering under the calyx and shoot feeding from inside (Fasih et al., 1989). Infested young
fruit often become hollow and filled with frass. Larvae can be observed inside fruit and wilted shoots. The
first indication of entering is a small hole in the fruit followed by large tunneled area inside the fruit containing
frass and insect remains (Praasterink, 2003).

Biology of the pest: Study of L. orbonalis revealed that a single female lays 150-260 eggs (Alpuerto 1994;
Alam and Sana, 1964). The egg measures 0.8 mm-0.85 mm in length and 0.55–0.6 mm in width (Saxena,
1965). Eggs are laid singly or in groups on the underside of the leaves, on stems, flower buds, or at the base of
the fruit. The eggs are sticky and they are firmly attached to the leaf surface. Eggs are very small and it is
difficult to see them in the field. The eggs are irregular diamond shaped creamy white when newly laid but
turn orange yellow when about to hatch (Alpuerto, 1994; Alam and Sana, 1964). The eggs hatch within 7-19
days after laying. Upon hatching, the larvae crawl for about 30-60 minutes to locate a suitable site for
penetration, i.e. shoot or fruit, fruit are being preferred to shoots. The young caterpillar is whitish in color
and turns light pink to light brown as it matures. It has six larval instars, first instar larvae are less than 1
4 R. B. Thapa

mm in length and the last instar is big, 15-18 mm long. The larval period varies from 12-15 days in summer and
14 -25 days in winter.
The fully grown caterpillars come down from the plant for pupation. They hang on a silken thread
and pupate on the surface of stems, under dried leaves or debris in soil. The pupal period remains 7-10 days.
Caterpillar hibernates in winter and pupates early in the spring and moth emerges from the cocoon in March-
April through an exist hole already left by the caterpillar during the construction of the cocoon (Atwal, 1976).
The adult is a small white moth with 40-segmented antennae (Sexena, 1965) and having ferruginous spots on
forewings. The adults are nocturnal and all major activities like feeding, mating and finding a place for egg
laying take place during the night. Furthermore, Alam and Sana (1964) reported adults hiding during the day
in nearby shady areas. They live for about 4 days; male dies after mating and the female after laying eggs.
Life cycle completes in 22-55 days. The insect produces five generations and is active throughout the year. In
relation to abiotic factors, low variation in minimum and maximum temperature, high relative humidity and
good rain enhanced the population of this insects (Patel et al.,1988; Shukla, 1989).
According to Shukla (1989), Thanki and Patel (1988), Chaudhary and Kasyap (1987), July transplanted
crop was exposed longer period (October to February) to this pest and thus caused more damage, whereas
January transplanted crop suffered less due to short exposure of only two months in May and June (Shukla,
1989).
The behavior and distribution pattern of L . orbonalis in relation to season and growth stage of the
host showed that chemical insecticides might not be appropriate unless timely application is critically
considered. In insecticide free brinjal plants, the pest population was affected by mortality factors, larval
parasitism during the rainy season (Alpuerto, 1994).

INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT
Integrated pest management (IPM) is an economically justified and sustainable system of crop
protection that utilizes all suitable techniques in a compatible manner and aims at maximizing and sustaining
productivity leaving the least possible adverse consequences on the environment. It has been successfully
practiced for some important crops, such as rice, cotton, tobacco, sugarcane, some fruit and vegetables against
the major pests in some other countries. Since 1983, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization
(FAO) has been promoting IPM in nine countries in south and South-east Asia. In Nepal, the Eighth Plan
(1992-1997) gives due recognition to IPM and states that it will be promoted as an alternative to overreliance
on chemical pesticide alone. Baker and Gyawali (1994) stressed use of IPM technique in pest management.
IPM for fruit fly control has been successful in citrus. Similarly, IPM can be practiced for important pests in
commercially grown crops where both overuse and misuse of pesticide has been a major concern. Government
of Nepal has also initiated IPM in various districts, commercially vegetable grown areas with heavy input of
fertilizers and pesticides. However, for many commercially grown crops the basic requirements of various
IPM components are still in initial stage, which need to be worked out in detail.

Sanitation : Sanitation is one of the elementary procedures creating hygienic condition in reducing favorable
agro-ecosystem for pest species. Removing and destroying of infected plant parts reduce pest population
preventing further spread of infestation. Ghimire et al. (2007) found that periodically pinching of damaged
shoot and burying them in the soil helps to reduce pest infestation against fruit and shoot borer in brinjal. The
borer damage to fruit was not as dramatically reduced as compared to shoots. This is due to the fact that when
fruit are formed, the majority of newly hatched larvae prefer to feed on fruit than shoots (Alam et al., 2003).

Fertilization: Manuring with high levels of nitrogen induced susceptibility of the plants to the incidence of
borer, whereas high dose of phosphorus and potash minimized the pest injuries (Table 4). The application of
nitrogen at higher doses increased the succulence of the fruit and shoots and made them to pest injury, while
higher levels of potash and phosphorus promoted the early maturity and hardening of the plant tissues that
enabled the plants to escape the injuries of the borer.
J. Inst. Agric. Anim. Sci. 31: 1 -16 (2010) 5

Table 4. Manurial response to the incidence of L. arbonalis on brinjal (Muktakesh)

Fertilizers Fruit infestation (%) Shoot infestation (%)
Nitrogen (30 kg/ha) 23.46 14.81
Nitrogen (60 kg/ha) 33.79 33.00
Phosphorus (40 kg/ha) 23.67 13.79
Phosphorus (80 kg/ha) 13.39 9.30
Potash (50 kg/ha) 17.36 11.68
Potash (100 kg/ha) 12.60 7.73
Control (No fertilizer) 19.07 12.76
Source : Mehto and Lal (1981)

Physical barrier : The adult moth is not a strong flyer; it flies short distance from one plant to another. To
combat the problem, physical barriers can be used following the guiding principle- “Avoidance is better than
control”. Bagging provides effective physical barrier to the fruit against infestation by the pest. Perforated
poly packs, newspaper, and brass paper etc. act as effective physical barriers. It is a cheaper and a safe
method over the application of insecticides (Table 5). This method can save cash drains that occur through
costly pesticide application. Brinjal crop can be protected preventing adults by erecting commonly used
nylon net barrier of suitable height (NARC, 1999). The organic fruit are completely free from pesticide
residue and safe for human consumption and fetch good market price.

Table 5. Effect of treatments on marketable yield of brinjal at IAAS, Chitwan

Marketable
Marketable yield increase Additional income over
Treatments Yield (t/ha)
over untreated control (t/ha) untreated control
(Rs/ha)
Barrier 10.29 4.94 (40) 74100
Barrier +Clipping 10.68 5.33 (44 ) 79950
NPV + Margosom 6.13 0.78 (9) 11700
Clipping without barrier 4.54 -
Control 5.35 -
Source : Ghimire et al. (2007); Market Price @ 15 (Rs/kg) in May –June. Values in parenthesis indicate
percentage

Resistant variety: Among the tested germplasms, Kale et al. (1986) reported susceptible varieties showing
of 31.4% shoot infestation as compared to tolerable varieties with 11.2% only. Resistance varieties showed
low fruit infestation by number (7.3-10.3%) and by weight (6.7-10.5%). Varieties more than 30% fruit
infestation were considered as susceptible, while resistant variety had maximum number of healthy fruit (51-
127) per plant. Long narrow fruited variety suffers less because of low egg laying preference compared to
susceptible ones. However, Thapa et al. (2009) found all varieties with higher fruit damage (49.91-81.29%)
while testing ten brinjal varieties including hybrids in Parwanipur, Bara district, In addition, resistant varieties
resulted in low larval survival and weight gain with their pupae significantly smaller than in susceptible ones
indicating antibiosis mechanism (Pawar et al., 1986). Ghimire (2001) and NARC (1998) reported varieties
that had the lower fruit infestation than Pusa Purple Long and local ones except Began Neelam (Table 6).

Table 6. Infestation by L. orbonalis to brinjal cultivars

Cultivars Fruit damage (%)
Began Neelam 52.10
Noorki 29.00
Pusa Purple Long 40.50
Chitwan Local 36.67
Gorkha Local 34.21
Source : Devkota et. al. (2001); Thapa et al. (2009)
6 R. B. Thapa

Some varieties like PBR 129-5, ARV-2-c, Arka, Kusumakar, PBR91-7, Pusa Purple Cluster,
Brinjal green long, etc. were screened as less susceptible to this pest (Darekar et al., 1991). Some
varieties that can withstand fruit and shoot borer are presented in Table 7 and other varieties with their
performances are given in Table 8.

Table 7. Brinjal varieties that can withstand pest infestation better than PPL
Pests Varieties
Brinjal fruit and shoot borer Nurki, Pusa Kranti, Sukatara, B. H-1,
Fusarium wilt Furano, Gresco hybrid
Bacterial wilt Pusa Purple Cluster, Pant Brinjal, Hybrid-1
Yellow vein mosaic Saurav, Supriya
Source : Compiled from various sources
Table 8. Borer incidence and yield of selected brinjal cultivars
Variety Days to Source Fruit character Fruit borer damage
maturity Color Shape Yield (%) Location
PPL 58 Nepal Purple Long 2.1a 41.6 Vanarasi
Lurke 60 Nepal Purple green Long 1.5 a 45.2 Vanarasi
Nurke 65 Nepal Purple Oblong 2.6 a 28.7 Vanarasi
BL S14 97 Nepal 1.5 a 50.0 Bangladesh
Pusa Kranti 65 India Dark purple Long 2.6 a 45.0 Vanarasi
Pant Samrat 65 India Purple Long 1.6 a 25.0 Vanarasi
Pant Rituraj 62 India Purple 2.8 b 17.0 Srilanka
PPL 58 India Purple Long 2.1 a 41.3 Vanarasi
KT 4 India Purple Long 2.2 a 38.5 Vanarasi
Islampuri 70 Bangladesh Light purple Long 1.7 a 44.9 Vanarasi
Khat Khati 65 Bangladesh Purple Long 1.7 a 27.3 Vanarasi
Uttara 68 Bangladesh Pink purple Long 1.7 a 33.3 Vanarasi
PPL 58 Bhutan Purple 9.2 b 29.0 Srilanka
Thinnevelly 65 Srilanka Purple 6.5 b 49.0 Srilanka
SM 164 70 Srilanka White purple 3.1 b 50.0 Srilanka
Source : Compiled from various sources. a = yield kg/plant and b= yield t/ha

The biochemical basis of field resistant mechanism of eggplant (SM-17-4) to the fruit and shoot
borer was due to higher glycoloid content, peroxidase and polyphenol oxidase activities than in the
susceptible variety. Glycoalkaloides in association with phenolic compound confer resistance to eggplant
fruit against this pest (Bajaj et al., 1989). Highly resistant variety had tightly arranged seeds in the
mesocarp, closely packed vascular bundle in the pulp. Color of leaves, position of the leaves on plants
and fruit did not show any impact on the tolerance against the pest (Paut, 1987; Lal, 1991; Subbartnam,
1982; Panda 1991; Mishra et al., 1988). Panda and Das (1974) reported dense pubescent varieties with
long tuft erect trichomes on the surface, affecting on oviposition by moth and hatching larvae to reach the
normal boring site. The immune wild type and highly resistant variety had high silica and crude fiber
contents and comparatively less ash and crude fat protein in the shoot, which were unfavorable for larval
feeding and digestion (Kale et al., 1986). Malik et al. (1989) suggested that genotypes bearing thin fruit
with short calyx, less calyx diameter and thin shoot considered as tolerant to borer attack and selection
based on these parameters could to be desired.

Pesticide application : Farmers depend on chemical pesticides, right from the land preparation and seed
sowing to final harvest and marketing of brinjal. Nepal consumes very low quantity of pesticides as
compared to other South Asian countries, however, the application of pesticide in some of the
commodities such as cotton (2500 gm/ha) and commercial vegetables (1450 gm/ha) is exceptionally high
in the Nepalese context (Thapa, 1997). Traditional integrated pest management systems are invaded and
destroyed by the use of modern agrochemicals (Pandey, 1993). Spraying insecticides such as DDT, HCH,
J. Inst. Agric. Anim. Sci. 31: 1 -16 (2010) 7

tetrax-1 and endrin, carbaryl, tetrachlor vinphos, malathion, synthetic pyrethroid, permetrin etc. and as
soil applicants-carbofuran, aldicarb, phorate, mephofolan, dimethoate, carbaryl, dizinon or difolatan have
been used in various concentrations against L. orbonalis (Banarjee and Basu, 1956; Jotwani and Sarup,
1963; Ahmad, 2009; Mote, 1981; Gupta et al., 1999; Satpathy and Panda, 1997).
Srivastava and Singh (1974) reported that the efficacy of insecticide with urea containing 1.5% N
was found more effective than insecticide alone. Soil application of carbofuran 3 G @ 50 kg/ha, 10 days
after transplanting followed by three foliar sprayings from 52 days after transplanting at 14 days interval
provided effective control of L. orbonalis. Singh (1983) recommended application of synthetic pyrethroid
at 10-100 gm a.i./ha. Considering the marketable yields, 50 gm a.i./ha of permethrin or fenvalerate, 40
gm a.i./ha of cypermethrin or 10 gm a.i./ha of deltamethrin were suitable to control of the pest. Among
fifteen insecticides including neem seed extracts evaluation, all treatments except dimethoate, malathion,
fenitrothion and monocrotophos were effective over control. Similarly, Gangwar and Sachan (1981) also
found economic control of L. orbonaslis with high return of 42.9% by sprayings of deltamethrin @ 15
gm a.i./ha or endosulfan 0.15% or phosphamidon 0.05%. In two different treatments carbaryl and
cypermethrin spray on brinjal plant once a month starting with the first appearance of infested shoot and
other carbofuran incorporation twice-once at the time of new leaves appearance and then another 30 days
after transplanting, cypermethrin and carbofuran reduced infestation by 83-91% and 83-88%,
respectively. Among the synthetic pyrethroids, use of deltamethrin 0.003% resulted the highest yield.
Kuppuswamy and Balasubramanian (1980) recorded significantly low damage of L. orbonalis in rainy
season by using synthetic pyrethroid, permethrin, cypermethrin, deltamethrin and fenvalerate each @ 0.1
kg a.i./ha, which significantly lowered the damage caused by L orbonalis ranging from 11.73–21.40%
based on fruit number. What so ever, after pesticide application recommended waiting period for
harvesting of fruit is necessary to minimize pesticide residues in fruit (Table 9).

Insecticide residue and adverse effect: AVRDC (1994) reported that farmers spray insecticides up to
50 per cropping season of 5/6 months. The misuse of pesticides thus resulted resurgence of other pest like
Thrips palmi. Thapa (1997) recorded residue level of malathion, fenitrothion, parathion at 0.64, 0.64 and
0.36 ppm, respectively in fresh brinjal fruit even after harvest (Table 10). Thirty days after spraying,
various parts showed residue of 1.5 to 4.0 ppm except during December-January when it was 7 ppm on
fruit and 11.7 ppm on leaves. During May-June, about two weeks was required for carbaryl residue on
fruit to come down to tolerance limit of 10 ppm, three weeks during September-November and 4 weeks
during December-January (Deshmukh and Lal, 1969).
Table 9. Waiting period of some common pesticides after spraying
Pesticides Waiting period after use (days)
Malathion- Malathion 7
Fenitrothion- Folithion 10
Dimethoate- Rogor 15
Cypermethrin/Fenvelerate- Decis, Ripcord, Fen Fen, Superkiller, Usta
Anukill, Anumite, Cyperkill, Fenkill, Trumcard, etc. 10-14
Endosulfan- Thiodan, Endocel, Hexasulfan 42
Dichlorovos- Nuvan, Doom, DDVP, Sucklor etc. 2-4
Forate- Thimet 90
Carbofuran- Furadan 45
Monocrotophos- Phoskill, Nuvacron, Monocil etc. 14-30
Chloropyrifos- Dormet, Dursban, Nurel etc. 14
Soirce : Butani and Jotwani (1984)
Sangama et al. (1989) recorded dissipation residues of quinalphos from insecticide treated brinjal
fruit initially, 9.8-10.89 ppm ,which declined by over 95% in 15 days. The residue of endosulfan lasts
longer than 15 days and safe period is 15.97 and 14.89 days, respectively, at 0.5 and 1.0 kg a.i./ha on
brinjal during fruiting stage. Satpathy et al. (1974) reported the residue level of phorate and disulfoton in
brinjal fruit above the tolerate limit at 0.75 ppm till 3 weeks from soil application. Teotia and Singh
8 R. B. Thapa

(1971) recorded the relative toxicity of various insecticides to brinjal based on LC50 value as malathion >
thiometon > diazinon > fenitrothion > chlorodane > dichlorovos > gammaHCH > heptachlor >
isobenzene > endrin > carbaryl > dieldrin etc.
Table 10. Pesticide residues in fresh vegetables
Vegetable Tested sample Contamination Residue Chemical
(No) sample (No) (ppm) type
Potato 7 4 Tr – 0.60 Malathion
0.32 Fenitrothion
Cauliflower 5 2 4.80 Malathion
1.60 Parathion
Radish/carrot 7 3 Tr – 0.64 Parathion
Tr – 0.40 Fenitrothion
Turnip 5 4 4.80 Malathion
0.64 – 0.80 Parathion
6.40 Fenitrothion
Tomato 2 2 0.80 Malathion
0.30 – 1.60 Parathion
Brinjal 2 1 0.64 Malathion
0.64 Fenitrothion
0.36 Parathion
Broad leaf 4 3 0.40 – 1.20 BHC
mustard 1.00 – 2.60 OP
Radish 2 2 Tr DDT
1.20 BHC
Bean 3 3 Tr DDT
Tr – 1.00 BHC
2.20 – 3.00 OP
Chyote 1 1 1.40 BHC
1.60 OP
Cabbage 1 1 0.60 BHC
Source: Thapa (1997)

Use of botanical materials: The botanical materials are natural products and far low toxic to non-target
organisms. The botanical products can even be used in their crude forms. Many of the potential botanical
pesticidal plants are available in Nepal and many of the farmers who are still following their traditional
farming systems are aware about such plants. Such plants which have multiple uses (as fuel-wood, timber,
fodder and other domestic uses) can be easily grown in the farms).
The role of botanical pesticides as an attractants, repellent, antifeedants, insect growth regulators,
ovicides, antigonad agents and as toxicants have been known against various insect pests. Screening neem for
wide spectrum of bio-activities have been well understood (Rao and Mani, 1995). The botanical pesticidal
plants available in Nepal and botanical materials available in the Nepalese market and their manufacturers as
well distributors have been presented in Tables 11 and 12, respectively. All of the pesticides are neem based
containing azadirachtin as the active ingredient and available in the form of emulsifiable concentrate. The
neem-based pesticides are recommended for the control of various insect pests attacking several crops (Neupane
et al., 1991; Neupane, 2001).
In many cases, azadirachtin has achieved good result in pest control comparable to that of synthetic
compounds, however, field trials have shown numerous limitations such as fast degradation due to the influence
of ultra violet light and limited amount of active compound transported in the phloem thus found unsatisfactory
to control phloem feeding aphids and leafhoppers. Neem products usually lack on ovicidal effect. Due to lack
of contact toxicity, most insects scape from ovicidal effects (Schmutter, 1990). Use of azadirachtin @ 50 or
100 microgram (µg) in fifth instar larvae have showed significance difference in growth rate of Mamestra
configurata, Peridroma saucia, and Melanchra picta.
J. Inst. Agric. Anim. Sci. 31: 1 -16 (2010) 9

Azdirachtin or azadirachtin-containing extracts from neem seeds have antifeedent and sterilent
properties. It also acted as an inhibitor of chitin biosynthesis. Few scientists have suggested interference with
the neuroendocrine system controlling ecdysone and juvenile hormone synthesis. Among all plant products,
Chitra et al. (1993) reported ether extracts of Argemon maxicana 0.1% comparable to monocrotophos
0.04% and endosulfan 0.07%. Equally effective were A. indica, and A. squamosa against brinjal pest complex
including L. orbonalis with first spray 3 days after transplanting and later 3 at fortnightly intervals. Among
botanical insecticides, neemguard is safe in both field and lab condition. It’s effect on parasitization and
development of Trichogramma revealed relatively safe at lower concentration but higher concentration showed
adverse effect. In addition, important natural enemies of pests such as spiders, earwigs and some parasitic
wasps are only slightly harmed.

Table 11. Potential botanicals available and their distribution in Nepal

Family and botanical name English name Nepali name Distribution*
Acanthaceae
Justicia adhatoda Adhatoda Asuro 1, 2
Annonaceae
Annona reticulata Custard apple Ramphal 1, 2
Annona squamosa Sugar apple Sarifa 1, 2
Araceae
Acorus calamus Sweetflag Bojho 1, 2
Asteraceae
Ageratum conyzoides Goatweed Gandhejhar 1, 2
Chrysanthemum cineraraefolium Pyrethrum Paridram 2, 3
Tagetes erecta African marigold Sayapatri 1, 2
Tagetes patula French marigold Sayapatri 1, 2
Euphorbiaceae
Ricinus communis Castor bean Andir 1, 2
Fabaceae
Arachis hypogaea Groundnut Badam 1, 2
Derris elliptica Derris Deri 2
Pachyrhizus erosus Chinese yam bean Keshar 1
Pongamia pinnata Poonga oil tree Karengi 1
Meliaceae
Azadirachta indica Neem tree Neem 1
Melia azedarach Chinaberry Bakainu 1, 2
Ranunculaceae
Aconitum ferox Indian aconite Bish 2, 3
Sapotaceae
Madhuca indica Mowra Mauwa 1
Solanaceae
Datura metel Angel trumpet Kalo Dhaturo 1, 2
Datura stromonium Jimson weed Seto Dhaturo 1, 2
Nicotiana rustica Tobacco Surti 1, 2
Nicotiana tabacum Tobacco Surti 1, 2
Verbenaceae
Vitex negundo Indian privet Simali 1, 2
Zingiberaceae
Zingiber officinale Zinger Aduwa 1, 2

* 1. Terai and the Siwalik, 2. Mid-hills, 3. High Himal and the Mountains
10 R. B. Thapa

Table 12. Botanical pesticides available in market

Product name Source Manufacturer/Distributor
Neemark (azadirachtin 0.03% EC)* Neem West Coast Herbachem Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, India
Multineem (Azadirachtin 0.03% EC)* Neem Multiplex Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, India
Econeem (Azadirachtin 0.03% EC)* Neem Margo Biocontrol Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, India
Biomultineem (Azadirachtin 0.15 %EC)* Neem Biocontrol Research Laboratory, Bangalore, India
Margosom (Azadirachtin 0.15% EC)* Neem Som Phytopharma (India) Ltd., Hyderabad, India
Limonool (Azadirachtin 0.03% EC)* Neem Sri Bio Multi Tech. Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, India
* Registered with the Pesticide Registrar’s Office, PPD, Harihar Bhawan, Pulchok, Lalitpur (PPD, 2002)

Use of microbial organisms (bio-pesticides) : Insect diseases and their symptoms have been recognized
as far back as 2700 B.C. in China with honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) and silkworm (Bombyx mori L.).
Early scientific studies in insect diseases include investigations of white muscardine diseases caused by
the fungus, Beauveria bassiana and pebrine diseases caused by Nosema bombycis on silkworms (Pedigo,
1996). The major microorganisms causing diseases in insect include bacteria, viruses, protozoa, fungi,
and rickettsia. They may cause diseases that kill insects outright, reduce their capabilities or slow their
growth and development. Of the bacteria, the spore forming species, Bacillus spp. (especially Bt) has
been most important in insect suppression. Similarly, to date, more than 450 viruses have been described
from about 500 arthropod species. The majority of these cause diseases in Lepidoptera, Hymenoptera,
and Diptera. The best-known virus of insects is the nuclear polyhydrosis virus (NPV). It has been
established that Bt, NPV and neem based products affect insects in many ways. Under field condition,
even lepidopterous larvae are very sensitive to these biocides (Gupta and Rosan, 1995).

Use of bio-agents (Predators and parasites) : Out of 83 larvae reared in the laboratory, IAAS, only
52% entered into pupation of which 70% adults emerged. The average parasitism ranged 10-33% with an
average of 23.33% (Table 13).

Table 13. Natural parasitization of L. orbonalis by hymenopterous wasp

Collection date Number of Number Number of adult Percent
larvae rearing Pupated emerged Parasitism
First May 20 6 3 33.3
First June 10 10 5 10.0
Mid June 23 8 6 17.0
Last June 30 20 11 10.0
Source : Ghimire (2001)

AVRDC (1994) reported two potential natural parasites of L. orbonalis. The parasites were
Erioborus sinicus (Holmgren) and Ichneumonid wasp of which the former parasitized up to 30% in
March-April. Similarly, in Banglore, Kumawat and Swaminathan (1990) mentioned the L. orbonalis
natural parasitism of 9.21-28.10% in during September-October by Bracon spp. Bracon spp. was
recorded as larval ectoparasite in Karnataka (India) by Tewari and Sandana (1990). Bustamante et al.
(1994) recorded the egg parasitoid, Trichgramma chilonis Ishii. as the most effective against L. orbonalis
that contributed the highest yield followed by endosulfan and endosulfan+deltamethrin, botanical and
fungus-M. anisopliae, respectively. The combination of plant products, microbial organisms and bio-
agents are reported to possess potential insect controlling properties that need due attention for managing
of brinjal fruit and shoot borer. Parasitic bio-agents of brinjal fruit and shoot borer are reported in South-
East Asia (Table 14).
J. Inst. Agric. Anim. Sci. 31: 1 -16 (2010) 11

Table 14. Parasitism of L. orbonalis in some South-Asian countries

Parasite Location Authors
Pristomerus testacus Mori New Delhi Bhutani and Jotwani, 1984
India, Tiwan Lall, 1964; AVRDC, 1994.
Cremastus flavoorbitalis Cam (Trathla) New Delhi Bhutani and Jotwani, 1984
Mysore, Kathmandu Nair, 1967; Kafle, 1968 &1970;
New Delhi, Tiwan Singh, 1993; AVRDC, 1994.
Shirakia schoenobiivier New Delhi Bhutani and Jotwani, 1984
Mysore; New Delhi Singh, 1993; Lall, 1964;
Microbracon greeni (Ashm) New Delhi Bhutani and Jotwani, 1984
Mysore, Asham Singh, 1993; Lall, 1964;
Iphiaulax sp New Delhi Bhutani and Jotwani;
Mysore, New Delhi Nair, 1967; Singh, 1993
Phanerotoma sp (Hr. hindercasisella) New Delhi, Tiwan Bhutani and Jotwani;AVRDC,1994
Pseudoperichaeta sp New Delhi Bhutani and Jotwani; 1984
Tiwan, India AVRDC, 1994, Patel et al., 1971
Camptothlipsis sp. Kathmandu Kafle, 1968 &1970
Campyloneurus mutator Fab New Delhi, Tiwan Singh, 1993; AVRDC, 1994.
India Tiwari & Krishnamurthy, 1984
Saturmia parachrysaps Bezii. New Delhi, Tiwan Singh, 1993; AVRDC, 1994.
Chelonus sp Kathmandu Kafle, 1968 &1970
Phillippines Navasero and Calilung, 1990.
Bracon sp Mysore, New Delhi Nair, 1967; Singh, 1993;
Banglore Tewari & Sandana, 1990.
Brachymeria obscurala (Walker) Navasero & Calilung, 1990.
Phillippines
Brachymeria sp. Phillippines Navasero & Calilung, 1990.
Xanthopimpla punctata (F) Phillippines Navasero & Calilung, 1990.
Phanerotoma sp (hr. hindcasisella) India, Tiwan Singh, 1993, AVRDC, 1994
Erioborus argetiopilosus (Cam) India Singh, 1993
Erioborus sinicus (Holmgren) Tiwan AVRDC, 1994
Source: Compiled from various sources

However, these bio-agents also are affected by indiscriminate use of pesticides. Effect of
pesticide to a predatory spider is given in Table 15 and cost of different pest management treatments in
Table 16.

Table 15. Effect of pesticide on spider (Lycosa pseudoannulata) predator of various insect pests
Pesticide Mortality at indicated hours (%)
24 hr 48 hr 72 hr
MIPC 12.5 25.0 25.0
Monocrotophos 12.5 25.0 25.0
Buprofezin 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cypermethrin 7.5 100.0 100.0
Untreated 0.0 0.0 0.0
Source: Pesticide formulation recent developments and their applications in developing countries, UNIDO,
Vienna.
12 R. B. Thapa

Table 16. Cost of brinjal pest management in UPLB, Philippines

Treatment Application Cost per application Cost of this experiment*
(No/month) (Peso/ha)
Insecticide 4.2 1,047 118.72
Manual cleaning 10 98 26.46
Trapping Continuous 260 7.02
Trichogramma 1 12 0.32
Euborellia 1 800 21.60
Control - - -
Source: Impacts of pesticide use on health in developing countries, IDRC; 23 Philippine Peso=1 US Dollar;
*Based on 60 m2/treatment over 4.5 months; Trichogramma 150,000 and Euborella 18,000 individuals released

CONCLUSIONS
Destruction of infested shoots and fruit, use of botanicals (i.e. Neem oil 0.2%), Bacillus
thuringiensis (Dipel 8L) @ 0.2% at 10 days interval, conservation of natural enemies (i.e. Trathala
flavoorbitalis, spider, ladybird beetle, mantid), and if necessary, release of egg parasitoid Trichogramma
japonicum results in very good control FSB of brinjal. Integration of following practices in brinjal
cultivation effectively help sustainable management of the pest and healthy production of fresh
marketable brinjal fruit:
a. Collection and destruction of infested/damaged plant parts such as leaves, stems, shoots, fruit is
necessary along with well preparation of nursery beds for a healthy production of seedlings. It is
also useful to follow rotation with non-host crops than continuously growing brinjal year after
year in the same field.
b. Balanced application of fertilizers (NPK) considering lower dose of N and higher dose of P & K
results better yield whereas cylinder long shaped cultivars produce higher yield than round
shaped ones to reduce incidence.
c. Light trap and pheromone monitoring reduces fruit and shoot borer population whereas
conservation of natural enemies in the field suppress pest population. Likewise fruit bagging or
use of physical barrier > 2 m height in small-scale production plots.
d. Growing of less susceptible cultivars is important where borer problem is severe likewise soil
mixing of carbofuran at 21 days of planting following two applications after each month gives
good control.
REFERENCES CITED
Ahmad, H., M. H. Rahman, M. A. Haque and K. S. Ahmed. 2009. Studies on shoot and leaf characters of
brinjal plants and their quantitative relationships with brinjal shoot and fruit borer. J. Bangladesh Agric.
Univ. 7 (1): 39-32.
Alam, A. Z. and D. L. Sana. 1964. Biology of Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. in East Pakistan. In: Review of
Research, Division of Entomology, Agriculture Information Service, Department of Agriculture, Dhaka,
Bangladesh. pp. 192–200.
Alam, S. N., M. A. Rashid, F. M. A. Rouf, R. C. Jhala, J. R. Patel, S. Satpathy, T. M. Shivalingaswamy, S. Rai,
I. Wahundeniya, A. Cork, C. Ammaranan and N. S. Talekar. 2003. Development of an Integrated
Pest Management Strategy for Eggplant Shoot and fruit borer in South Asia. Technical Bulletin.
No. 28. AVRDC, Taiwan.
Alam, S. N., M. A. Rashid, F. M. A. Rouf., R. C. Jhala, J. R. Patel, S. Satpathy, T. M. Shivalingaswamy,
S. Rai, I. Wahundeniya, A. Cork, C. Amaranan and N. S. Taleker. 2003. Development of an IPM
strategy for EFSB in South Asia. Technical Bulletin No.28. Asian Vegetable Research and Development
Centre, Shanhua, Taiwan. 56p.
Ali, M. H. and P. M. Sanghi. 1962. Observation on oviposition, longevity and sex ratio of brinjal fruit and shoot
borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.. Madras Agric. J. 4 (8):267-269.
J. Inst. Agric. Anim. Sci. 31: 1 -16 (2010) 13

g
Alpuerto, A.B. 1994. Ecological studies and management gof eggplant gg shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes
orbonalis Guen. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Ph.D. Dissertation, University of the Phillippines
at Los Banos, Philippines. 153 p.
A Agricultural
Atwal, A. S. 1976. l A S 19 6pestsA of i Indian and Southeast Asia. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi,
India. 529 p.
AVRDC. 1994. Eggplant entomology control of eggplant fruit and shoot borer. Progress Report, Asian
Vegetable Research and Devbelopment Center (AVRDC), Sinhua, Taiwan.
AVRDC. 1999. Annual report. Asian Vegetable Research and Devbelopment Center (AVRDC), Sinhua,
Taiwan.
Bajaj, K. L. D. H. B. Singh and G. Kaur. 1989. Biochemical basis of relative field resistance of eggplant
(Solanum melongena L.) to thebrinjal shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.). Ve.
Sci. 16 (2): 145-149.
Baker, S. L. and B. K. Gyawali. 1994. Promoting proper pesticide use in Nepal. Research Report Series No.
28.. GON, Ministry of Agriculture / Winrock International Kathmandu, Nepal. 55p.
Banerjee, S. N. and A. N. A. Basu. 1956. Evaluation of insecticides against brinjal fruit and shoot borer in
India. FAO Plant Prot. Bull. 5 (1):7-8.
Bustamante, R. C. P. B. Luzaran, L. T. Gruber and E. Villaneva. 1994. Field evaluation on different control
methods against eggplant shoot and fruit borer. The Phillippine J. Plant Indus. 59 (1-2):119-125.
Butani, D. K. and M. G. Jotwani. 1984. Insects in vegetables. Periodical Expert Book Agency, New
Delhi, India. 356 p.
Chadha, M. L. 1993. Improvement of brinjal. In: K. L Chadha and G. Callo (eds.) Advance in
Horticulture: Vegetable Crops 6 (2). Malhotra Publishing House, New Delhi, India. pp. 105-135.
Chaudhary O. P. and R. K. Kashyap. 1987. Field fertilization vis-à-vis incidence of insect pests complex
and marketable yield in the egg-plant, Solanum melongena L. Giornale Italiano di Ent.
3(17):413-420.
Chitra, K. C., S. J. Rao, P. K. Rao and K. Nagaiah. 1993. Field evaluation of certain plant products in the
control of brinjal pest complex. Indian J. Ent. 55(3):237-240.
Darekar, K. S., B. P. Gaikoad and U. D. Chavan.1991. Screening of eggplant cultivars for resistance of
fruit and shoot borer. J. Maharastra Agric. Univ. 16 (3):366-369.
Devkota, K. H., C. K. Mandal, D. R. Adhikari and R. C. Sahu. 2000. Integrated m of shoot and fruit
borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) on Brinjal. IAAS Res. Rep. (1995-2000): 201-203.
FAO. 2007. FAOSTAT. http.//faostat.fao.org. (retrieved: 3 April 2009).
Fasih, M., R. P. Shrivastava., S.R. Abbas and S. Dharm. 1989. Destroy borers-save vegetable crops.
Indian Hort. ?: 35-39.
Gangawar, S. K. and J. N. Sachan. 1981. Seasonal incidence and control of insect pests of brinjal with
special reference to shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. in Meghalaya. J. Res.
Assam Agric. Univ. 2(2): 37-39.
Ghimire, S. N., G. Upreti, R. B. Thapa and D. N. Manandhar. 2007. Eco-friendly management of brinjal
fruit and shoot borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). IAAS Res. Adv.
2:127-131.
Gupta, G. R. and R. L. Rosan. 1995. Biopesticides as alternatives to synthetic pesticide for pest
management in cotton. In: S. Walia and B. S. Parmer (eds.) Pesticide Crop Protection and
Environment. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India. pp. 454-465.
Gupta, S. C., P. P. Singh and A. Kumar. 1999. Effect of intercropping with spices on the incidence of
Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. in brinjal and its economics. Shashpa 6(1):45-48.
Hada, P. L., R. B. Thapa, S. M. Shrestha and M. D. Sharma. 2008. Survey of brinjal shoot and fruit borer
(Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.) in Khajura, Banke district of Nepal. J. Plant Proct. Soc. 1: 85-89.
Joshi, S. L. 2003. Investigation of eggplant fruit and shoot borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.
(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Nepal. Proceedings of the 3rd National Horticulture Research
Workshop, 7-8 June 2000. Nepal Agricultultural Research Council, Horticulture Research
Division, Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal. pp. 54-60.
14 R. B. Thapa

Jotwani, M. G. and Sarup, P. 1963. Evaluation of control schedule for brinjal (varieties, Pusa purple long)
particularly against fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee). Indian J. Ent. 25(4): 275-291.
Kafle, G.P. 1968. Studies on the bionomics and life cycle of Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee (Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae) under different conditions of temperature and humidity. Nepalese J. Agric. 3: 1-12.
Kafle, G.P. 1970. New records of some insects and non insect parasites of Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee in
Nepal. Nepalese J. Agric. 5:99-103.
Kale P. B., U. V. Mohod, V. N. Dod and H. S. Thakare. 1986. Screening of brinjal germplasm (Solanum spp.)
for resistant to fruit and shoot borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.) under field conditions. Proceeding
of the National Symposium on New Horizons in Resistant Breeding of Vegetable crops Feb. 14 –16 at
Jabalpur. Indian. Veg. Sci. 13 (2):376-382.
Kappuswamy, S. and M. Balasubramanian. 1980. Efficacy of synthetic pyrethroids against brinjal fruit borer,
Leucinodes. orbonalis. Guen. South Indian. Hort. 28 (3): 91-93.
Kumar, N. K. K. and A. T. Sadashiva. 1996. Solanum macrocarpon: A wild species of brinjal resistant to
brinjal shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. Insect Environ. 2(2):41-42.
Kumwat S. R. and R. Swaminathan. 1990. An unusual heavy parasitization of brinjal fruit and shoot borer
Leucinodes orbonalis Guen, by a new braconid parasite. Indian J. Ent. 52 (4):338-341.
Lal, O.P. 1991. Varietal resistance in the eggplant, Solanum melongena against the shoot and fruit borer,
Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Zeitschrift für Pflanzenkrankheiten und
Pflanzenschutz, 98(4):405-410.
Lall, B. S. 1964. Vegetable pests. In: N. C. Pant (ed.) Entomology in India. The Entomological Society of
India, New Delhi, India. pp. 137-211.
Lama, T. K., J. Ghimire, D. P. Lohar, D. Gurung and J. R. Subedi. 1998. Horticultural crop production problems,
prioritized research areas and suggestion to improve horticulture research in ARS Male Patan.
Proceedings of the 2nd National Horticulture Research Workshop, 13-15 May 1998. Nepal Agriculture
Research Council, Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal.
Malik, A. S., B. S. Dhankhar and N. K. Sharma. 1986. Variability and correlation among certain characteristics
in relation to shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.) infestation in brinjal. Hariyana
Agric. Univ. J. Res. 16 (3): 259-265.
Mehato, D. N. and B. S. Lal. 1981. A note on fertilization response against brinjal fruit and shoot borer. India
J. Ent. 43 (1): 106-107.
Mishra, P. N., Y. V. Singh and M. C. Nautiyal. 1988. Screening of brinjal varieties for resistance to brinjal
shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). South Indian Hort.
36:188-192.
Mote, U. N. 1976. Seasonal incidence and chemical control of brinjal fruit and shoot borer (Leucinodes
orbonalis Guen.). Veg. Sci. 3 (2): 128-130.
Mote, U. N. 1981. Varietal resistance in egg plant to Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. 1. Screening under field
conditions. Indian J. Ent. 43 (1): 112-115.
Nair, K.R. 1967. Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) as a serious pest of potato plants in
Mysore State. Indian J. Ent. 29(1):96–97.
NARC. 1998. Annual report. Entomology Division, Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Khumaltar, Lalitpur,
Nepal.
NARC. 1999. A research project for management of eggplant fruit and shoot borer using IPM Approach.
Entomology Division, Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal.
NARC. 1999. Annual technical report 2054–2055 (1997–1998), Entomology Division, NARC, Khumaltar,
Lalitpur, Nepal. pp. 18-23.
Navasero, M. V. and V. J. Calliung. 1990. Biology of the eggplant fruit and shoot borer, Leucinodes
orbonalis Guen. (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae) in the Phillippines, Phillippine Ent. 8:749-760.
Neupane, F.P. 2001. Insect control with botanicals (Nepali). Sajha Prakashan, Pulchowk, Lalitpur, Nepal.
Neupane, F. P. 1993. Insect pests of crop plants in Chitwan, Nepal. In: F. P. Neupane (ed.) IAAS Research
Reports (1985-1991). IAAS, Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal. pp. 493-526.
J. Inst. Agric. Anim. Sci. 31: 1 -16 (2010) 15

Neupane, F. P., S.M. Shrestha, R. B. Thapa and T. B. Adhikari. 1991. Bali Shamrakshyan (English
equivalent: Plant Protection) (in Nepali). Tribhuvan University, Institute of Agriculture and
Animal Science, Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal. 161 p.
Panda, N and R. C. Das. 1974. Ovipositional preference of shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes
orbonalis Guen. South Indian Hort. 22 (1-2): 48-50.
Panda, N., A. Mahapatra and M. Sahoo. 1971. Field evaluation of some brinjal varieties for
resistance to shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 41
(7): 597-601.
Pandey, I. R. 1993. Indigenous practices of vegetable production by Jyapu farmers around the
Kathmandu valley. In: Indigenous Management of National research in Nepal.
GON/Winrock International, Kathmandu, Nepal. pp. 99-119.
Patel, J. R., D. M. Korat and V. B. Patel. 1988. Incidence of shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes
orbonalis Guen.) Guen and its effect on yield in brinjal. Indian J. Plant Prot. 16(2):143-
145.
Paut, K. 1987. Comparison of insect fauna on three cultivars of eggplant (Solanum spp.).
Department of Crop Science, Lehon, Ghana.
Pawar, D. B., P. N. Kale, K. G. Chaudhari and D. S. Ajri. 1986. Incidence of brinjal shoot and-
fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.) in kharif and summer season. Cur. Res. Rep.
(Mahatma Phule Agriculture University) 2(2): 286-288.
Pedigo, L. P. 1996. Insect pest management. Printice Hall of India, New Delhi, India.
PPD. 2002. Plant Protection Act 1991, Plant Protection Regulation 1994 and Registered Pesticides
List (Nepali). Plant Protection Directorate, Harihar Bhawan, Lalitpur, Nepal. 22 p.
Praasterink, F. M. 2003. Eggplant integrated pest management as ecological guide. FAO Inter-
country Program for IPM in South and South-East Asia. FAO, Rome, Italy. 175p.
Pun, L. and B. B. Karmacharya. 1988. Vegetable training manual. Manpower Development
Program. Department of Agriculture, Harihar Bhavan, Puchowk, Lalitpur, Nepal. 235 p.
Rao, P. G. and C. Mani. 1995. Botanicals as source of insect pest management chemicals. In: S.
Walia and B. S. Parmar (eds. ) Pesticide, Crop Management and Environment. pp. 57-73.
Rasco, E.T. 1998. Research on vegetables in the Phillippines. In: R. T. Opena and B. T.
MacLaen (eds.) Vegetable Research in Southeast Asia. Asian Vegetable Research and
Development Center, Shanhua, Taiwan. pp. 31-38.
Ratul, H. S. 1986. Losses due to insect pests and vectors in some vegetable crops. Indian J. Ent. 48:406-
412.
Roy, D. C. and Y. D. Pande.1994. Damage to brinjal by Lepi. Pyraustidae and economics of its
insecticidal control. Indian J. Agric. Res. 28:2, 110-120.
Sangama, S. K., S. F. Hamid and S. P. Singh. 1989. Effect of quinalphos residue on eggplant (Solanum
melongena L.). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 59 (11): 756-758.
Satapathy, C. R. and S. K. Panda. 1997. Effect of commercial B.t. formulations against fruit borers of
okra. Insect Env. 3(2): 54-56.
Saxena, P. N. 1965. The life history and biology of Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. J. Zool. Soc. India 17(1-
2):64-70.
Schmutter, L. 1990, Evaluation of the insecticidal properties of the common Indian neem Azadirachta
indica. Bulletin of Entomological Society, Egyptian Economic Series 13 : 39-47.
Shukla, R. P. 1989. Population fluctuation of Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. and Amrasca biguttula
biguttula Ishida on brinjal (Solanum melongena L.) in relation to abiotic factor in Meghalaya.
Indian J. Agric. Sci. 59 ( 4) :260-264.
Singh, D. 1983. Control of brinjal fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.) with synthetic pyrethroids.
Pesticides 17 (9): 14-15.
16 R. B. Thapa

Singh, S. P. 1993. Biological control of vegetable pests. In: K. L. Chanda and G. Callo (eds.) Advance in
Horticulture : Vegetable Crops 6 (2). Malhotra Publishing House, New Delhi, India. pp. 887-920.
Som, M. G. and T. K. Maity. 1986. Brinjal. In: T. K. Bose and M. G. Som (eds.) Vegetable Crops in
India. Naya Prakashan,Calcutta, India. pp293-330.
Srivastava, O. S. and M. P. Singh. 1974. Effect of foliar application of uerea and insecticides on the yield
of brinjal. Indian J. Ent. 36 (3): 248-249.
Subbaratnam, G. V. 1982. Studies on the internal characters of brinjal shoot and fruit borer governing
resistance to shoot and fruit borer. South Indian Hort. 30 (1): 217:220.
Teotia, T. P. S. and S. N. Singh. 1971. Relative toxicity of some insecticides to the larvae of brinjal shoot
and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. Indian J. Ent. 33 (20): 217-219.
Tewari, G. C. and H. R. Sandana. 1990. An unusual heavy parasitization of brinjal shoot and fruit borer,
Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. by a new braconid parasite. Indian J. Ent. 52(2):338-341.
Tewari, G. C. and P. N. Krishnamoorthy. 1984. New records of two parasite of brinjal shoot and fruit
borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. Ent. 9 (1): 63-64.
Thanki, K. V. and J. R. Patel. 1988. Seasonal incidence of brinjal shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes
orbonalis Guen.) on eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) in Gujarat. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 58 (11) :
867-868.
Thapa, R. B. 2003. Pesticide pollution and integrated pest management. In: F. P. Neupane (ed.)
Integrated Pest Management in Nepal. Proceedings of the National Seminar on Integrated Pest
Management in Nepal, 25-26 September, 2002. Himalayan Resource Institute, Kathmandu, Nepal.
pp. 175-194.
Thapa, R. B., B. Achhami, S. Tiwari and S. C. Dhakal. 2009. Field screening of selected brinjal
genotypes against brinjal fruit and shoot borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. (Pyralidae:
Lepidoptera) in Eastern Terai of Nepal. J. Inst. Agric. Anim. Sci. 30:173-177.
Thapa, R.B. 1997. An overview of pesticide pollution in Nepal. J. Hort Soc. Nepal. 1: 30-39.
Tripathi, M. K. B. Senapati and R. Patra. 1996. Seasonal incidence and population fluctuation of
Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. at Bhubaneshwar, Orissa. Pest Mgmt & Econ. Zool. 4(1-2):15-18.