See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343920556

Evaluation of Bio-pesticides against Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.

E. Smith) in Maize

Article in International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences · August 2020
DOI: 10.20546/ijcmas.2020.908.127

CITATIONS READS
11 2,215

8 authors, including:

Chirag Varma Manoharsinh Zala

Anand Agricultural University Anand Agricultural University
10 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS 50 PUBLICATIONS 118 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Haresh Varma D.B. Sisodiya

Anand Agricultural University Anand Agricultural University
13 PUBLICATIONS 47 CITATIONS 45 PUBLICATIONS 106 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Manoharsinh Zala on 27 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(8): 1150-1160

International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences

ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 9 Number 8 (2020)
Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com

Original Research Article https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.908.127

Evaluation of Bio-pesticides against Fall Armyworm,

Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) in Maize

C. B. Dhobi1*, M. B. Zala2, H. S. Verma3, D. B. Sisodiya1, R. K. Thumar4,

M. B. Patel3, J. K. Patel2 and P. K. Borad1

1
Department of Entomology, B. A. College of Agriculture, Anand Agricultural University,
Anand 388 110, Gujarat, India
2
ARS, Sansoli, AAU, Anand, India
3
MMRS, Godhra, AAU, Anand, India

*Corresponding author

ABSTRACT

Keywords An experiment was conducted under field condition at three locations viz., Entomology
Farm, B. A. College of Agriculture, AAU, Anand, Agricultural Research Station, Sansoli
Fall armyworm,
Bio-pesticides,
and main maize research Station, Godhra during Kharif, 2019 to determine the efficacy of
Invasive pest, different biopesticides against the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda in maize
Maize, Yield (GAYMH-1) by using Randomized Block Design (RBD) with three replications. The
lowest larval population (1.81 larvae /10 plants and 2.03 larvae /10 plants), minimum plant
Article Info damage (15.34% and 17.70%) and cob damage (15.19 % and 15.19%) was observed in the
plot treated with Nomuraea rileyi 1% WP @ 40 g/10 lit water and it was at par with
Accepted: Bacillus thuringiensis var.kurstaki 1 % WG @ 20 g/10 lit water, respectively. Of the tested
15 July 2020 biopesticides, the highest grain and fodder yield was recorded from the plot treated with
Available Online: N. rileyi 1% WP (2957 and 4069 kg/ha) and followed by B. thuringiensis (2932 and 4033
10 August 2020 kg/ha).

Introduction 2018). This pest is highly polyphagous and

migratory in behaviour that can colonize over
Maize is an emerging third most important 80 different plant species of which maize is
cereal crop after rice and wheat in India. not an exception. It also attacks crops such as
Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, alfalfa, soybean, sorghum (Bohnenblust et al.,
Maharashtra, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya 2014) cotton and other diverse pasture grasses
Pradesh and Gujarat account for 85 per cent (Murúa and Virla, 2004). The caterpillar feeds
of India's maize production. Recently, the on all stages of the corn plant by consuming
occurrence of a new invasive exotic pest the foliage and mostly prefers the young
Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith), a plants (Ameida de Moraes et al., 2015). Rows
lepidopteron insect has been suspected on of perforations are produced in the leaves due
maize crop in Karnataka (Shylesha et al., to the feeding done in the whorls of the plant

1150
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(8): 1150-1160

and sometimes this can lead to extensive following standard agronomical practices
defoliation and a reduction in the growth except pest control measures. Treatments
potential of the plant. In conditions of heavy were used: T1 Beauveria bassiana 5 % WP
infestations, the caterpillar sometimes (1x109 cfu/g), T2 Metarhizium anisopliae
burrows into the corn ear through the husk 1.15% WP (1x109 cfu/g), T3 Bacillus
and feeds on the kernel and this damage the thuringiensis 1 % WG, T4 Nomuraea rileyi
quality of the corn. The densities of caterpillar 1% WP (2x108cfu/g), T5 Azadirachtin 1500
finally reduced to one or two caterpillar per ppm, T6 Neem seed kernel extracts 5%, T7
plant due to their cannibalistic behaviour Tobacco decoction 2 % (cold method), T8
(Capinera, 2008). Sisodiya et al., (2018) Lantana camara leaf water extracts 10%, T9
reported the occurrence of invasive pest, fall Green Chilli (chilli variety GVC- 111) water
armyworm, S. frugiperda in the maize field of extracts 10% and T10 control. In the entire
Anklav taluka of Anand district of Gujarat. treatments sticker was added @ 0.15 %. The
As S. frugiperda is polyphagous pest, as per first spray was made at initiation of pest. The
the available literature, efforts are needed to second and third sprays were applied after 10
manage the pest and to check its further days interval of first spray. Spray fluid was
spread and to attack other crops. For this applied to the extent of slight run off using
purpose, insecticides are the main method to knapsack sprayer. The number of larva(e) and
control S. frugiperda in corn in Brazil, damaged plants were counted from randomly
however, it pollutes the environment when selected ten plants before as well as 5 and 10
they are used indiscriminately. Another days after each application. Numbers of
option is the biological control with several damaged cobs were recorded at harvest. The
beneficial organisms acting as natural grain and fodder yield were also recorded
enemies, viz., parasitoids, predators, fungi, from each net plot and converted into kg/ha.
virus, bacteria and nematodes (Cruz et al., The data obtained thus were, subjected to
2002). Hence, the present experiment was statistical analysis after appropriate
conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of transformation to draw valid conclusion.
some biopesticides for controlling FAW in
maize. Results and Discussion

Materials and Methods The data on pooled over periods, sprays and
locations of fall armyworm during 2019 are
In order to study the evaluation of different presented in Table 1 to 5, respectively. The
biopesticides against the fall armyworm, S. efficacy of different biopesticides is adjudged
frugiperda in maize, a field experiment was based on pooled over periods.
carried out during Kharif, 2019 at three
locations viz., Entomology Farm, B. A. Larval population (No. of larvae/10 plants)
College of Agriculture, AAU, Anand,
Agricultural Research Station, Sansoli and The data on larval population pooled over
main maize research Station, Godhra in three locations before spraying of
Randomized Block Design (RBD) with 10 biopesticides showed non significant
treatments and 3 replications each having plot differences which indicated homogeneous
size of 6.0 x 3.6 m. Maize variety GAYMH-1 distribution of pest in the experimental plots
was sown at spacing of 60 x 20 cm on 15th, at all locations i.e., Anand, Sansoli and
22nd and 18th July, 2019 in different locations Godhra (Table 1 and 3). All the biopesticides
respectively. Maize crop was raised by treatments were found significantly superior

1151
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(8): 1150-1160

to control till 10 days of application in all the thuringiensis 1 % WG (2.03 larvae /10
three sprays, pooled over periods as well as plants). B. bassiana 5% WP (2.42 larvae/10
pooled over periods and sprays. plants) and Azadirachtin 1500 ppm (2.46
larvae /10 plants) were at par and stood
The data on pooled over periods of first spray second in position.
differed significantly to each other. The
lowest population of fall armyworm was Remaining bio-pesticides perform equally
recorded in plots treated with Nomuraea rileyi against fall armyworm in maize. The green
1% WP (2.19 larvae/10 plants) and it was at chilli water extracts recorded the highest
par with Bacillus thuringiensis 1 % WG (2.32 population (3.83 larvae /10 plants) and it was
larvae/10 plants). These two treatments at par with the L. camara leaf water extract
significantly superior to rest of the bio- (3.66 larvae /10 plants) in maize.
pesticides.
Plant damage (%)
The treatment of azadirachtin 1500 ppm (2.78
larvae/10 plants) and Beauveria bassiana 5% The data on plant damage pooled over three
WP (2.81 larvae/10 plants) remained next locations before spraying of biopesticides
effective in controlling the pest. Remaining showed non significant differences which
bio-pesticides performed equally against fall indicated homogeneous distribution of pest in
armyworm in maize. The Lantana camara the experimental plots at three locations i.e.,
leaf water extract recorded highest larval Anand, Sansoli and Godhra (Table 2 and 3).
population (3.54 larvae/10 plants). All the biopesticides treatments were found
significantly superior to control till 10 days of
The data on pooled over periods of second application in all the three sprays, pooled over
spray revealed that Nomuraea rileyi 1%WP periods as well as pooled over periods and
(1.84 larvae /10 plants) recorded the lowest sprays.
larval population and it was at par with B.
thuringiensis 1 % WG (2.03 larvae/10 plants). The data on pooled over periods of first spray
Azadirachtin 1500 ppm (2.32 larvae/10 differed significantly to each other. Minimum
plants) and B. bassiana 5% WP (2.42 plant damage caused by fall armyworm was
larvae/10 plants) registered next best effective found in plots treated with N. rileyi 1% WP
treatments in controlling the pest. Of the (18.40%) and it was at par with B.
tested biopesticides, green chilli water thuringiensis 1 % WG (20.27%).
extracts found least effective by recording the
highest larval population (3.83 larvae /10 These two treatments were found significantly
plants) and it was at par with L. camara leaf superior to rest of the bio-pesticides. B.
water extract (3.66 larvae /10 plants). More or bassiana 5% WP (24.89%), azadirachtin 1500
less similar trend of effectiveness was ppm (25.09%) and neem seed kernel extracts
observed in pooled over periods of third spray (26.51%) were found statically at par in
as noticed after pooled over periods of second reducing the maize plant damage due to fall
spray. armyworm.

Overall, the data on pooled over periods, The green chilli water extracts recorded
sprays and locations showed the lowest larval maximum (32.87%) plant damage and it was
population in N. rileyi 1% WP (1.81 larvae at par with L. camara leaf water extracts
/10 plants) and it was at par with B. (32.58%).

1152
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(8): 1150-1160

Table.1 Evaluation of bio-pesticides against fall armyworm, S. frugiperda infesting maize (Pooled over periods, sprays and locations)

Tr. Treatments No. of larva(e) /10 plants days after spray

No. Before First Second Third Pooled over
spray 5 10 Pooled 5 10 Pooled 5 10 Pooled periods and
sprays
1 Beauveria bassiana 5 % WP 1.91 1.69ab 1.94ab 1.82bc 1.75ab 1.66bc 1.71bc 1.55bc 1.66bc 1.61bc 1.71b
(40 g/10 lit water) (3.15) (2.36) (3.26) (2.81) (2.56) (2.26) (2.42) (1.90) (2.26) (2.09) (2.42)
2 Metarhizium anisopliae1.15% WP 1.88 1.73abc 1.99abc 1.86cd 1.85bcd 1.76c 1.80cd 1.70c 1.80c 1.76c 1.81c
(40 g/10 lit water) (3.03) (2.49) (3.46) (2.96) (2.92) (2.60) (2.78) (2.39) (2.74) (2.60) (2.78)
3 Bacillus thuringiensis 1 % WG 1.91 1.62a 1.73a 1.68ab 1.58a 1.59ab 1.59ab 1.48ab 1.49ab 1.49ab 1.59a
(20 g/10 lit water) (3.15) (2.12) (2.49) (2.32) (2.00) (2.03) (2.03) (1.69) (1.72) (1.72) (2.03)
4 Nomuraea rileyi 1%WP 1.91 1.58a 1.69a 1.64a 1.58a 1.47a 1.52a 1.37a 1.39a 1.39a 1.52a
(40 g/10 lit water) (3.15) (2.00) (2.36) (2.19) (2.00) (1.66) (1.84) (1.38) (1.43) (1.43) (1.81)
5 Azadirachtin 1500 ppm 2.01 1.73abc 1.88ab 1.81bc 1.72bc 1.62bc 1.67bc 1.62bc 1.72c 1.67c 1.72bc
(40 ml/10 lit water) (3.54) (2.49) (3.03) (2.78) (2.46) (2.12) (2.32) (2.12) (2.46) (2.29) (2.46)
6 Neem seed kernel extract 5% 1.79 1.77abc 1.94ab 1.86cd 1.77bcd 1.72bc 1.75c 1.65c 1.72c 1.69c 1.77bc
(500 g/10 lit water) (2.70) (2.63) (3.26) (2.96) (2.63) (2.46) (2.56) (2.22) (2.46) (2.36) (2.63)
7 Tobacco decoction 2% (cold method) 1.83 1.79d 2.06bc 1.92cd 1.88cde 1.97d 1.93de 1.88d 2.03d 1.96d 1.94d
(200 g/10 lit water) (2.85) (2.70) (3.74) (3.19) (3.03) (3.38) (3.22) (3.03) (3.62) (2.34) (3.26)
8 Lantana camara leaf water extract 10% 1.85 1.89cd 2.13cd 2.01d 1.99de 2.08d 2.03e 1.99de 2.12d 2.06de 2.04e
(1000 g/10 lit water) (2.92) (3.07) (4.04) (3.54) (3.46) (3.83) (3.66) (3.46) (3.99) (3.74) (3.66)
9 Green chilli water extract 10% 2.04 1.85bcd 2.08bc 1.97cd 2.02e 2.13d 2.08e 2.13e 2.25d 2.19e 2.08e
(1000 g/10 lit water) (3.66) (2.92) (3.83) (3.38) (3.58) (4.04) (3.83) (4.04) (4.56) (4.30) (3.83)
10 Control 1.75 2.36e 2.51e 2.44e 2.66f 2.77e 2.72f 2.88f 3.00e 2.95f 2.70f
(2.56) (5.07) (5.80) (5.45) (6.58) (7.17) (6.90) (7.79) (8.50) (8.20) (6.79)
S. Em.± Treatment (T) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.03
Location (L) 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02
TxL 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.09 0.05
C.D. at 0.05 % NS S S S S S S S S S S
C. V. % 10.04 12.25 10.75 11.24 13.31 10.43 11.81 10.64 12.81 11.81 11.79
Note: 1. Figures in parenthesis are retransformed values; those outside are transformed values
2. Treatment mean(s) with the letter(s) in common are not significant by DNMRT at 5% level of significance
3. Significant parameters and its interactions: T, P, L, T x S, P x S, where P= Period and S=Spray

1153
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(8): 1150-1160

Table2 Evaluation of bio-pesticides against plant damage caused by fall armyworm, S. frugiperda infesting maize (Pooled over
periods, sprays and locations)

Tr. Treatments Plant damage (%) days after spray

No. Before First Second Third Pooled over
spray 5 10 Pooled 5 10 Pooled 5 10 Pooled periods and
sprays
1 Beauveria bassiana 5 % WP 32.25 27.63abc 32.22cd 29.93b 29.03bcd 28.53bc 28.78b 25.08bc 28.37b 26.72b 28.48b
(40 g/10 lit water) (28.47) (21.51) (28.43) (24.89) (23.55) (22.81) (23.18) (17.97) (22.58) (20.22) (22.74)
2 Metarhizium anisopliae1.15% WP 30.01 29.20bc 35.10cde 32.15bc 31.32cd 30.84c 31.08b 28.53cd 30.84bc 29.68b 30.97bc
(40 g/10 lit water) (25.02) (23.80) (33.06) (28.32) (27.02) (26.41) (26.65) (22.81) (26.28) (24.52) (26.48)
3 Bacillus thuringiensis 1 % WG 32.98 25.48ab 28.03ab 26.76a 24.58ab 25.48ab 25.03a 22.03ab 23.68a 22.86a 24.88a
(20 g/10 lit water) (29.63) (18.51) (22.08) (20.27) (17.30) (18.51) (17.90) (14.07) (16.13) (15.09) (17.70)
4 Nomuraea rileyi 1%WP 32.32 23.68a 27.12a 25.40a 23.68a 22.94a 23.31a 18.18a 22.77a 20.48a 23.06a
(40 g/10 lit water) (28.58) (16.13) (20.78) (18.40) (16.13) (15.19) (15.66) (9.73) (14.98) (12.24) (15.34)
5 Azadirachtin 1500 ppm 30.84 28.53bc 31.58bc 30.06b 28.53bc 28.53bc 28.54b 26.72c 29.94b 28.33b 28.97b
(40 ml/10 lit water) (26.28) (22.81) (27.42) (25.09) (22.81) (22.81) (22.83) (20.22) (24.91) (22.52) (23.46)
6 Neem seed kernel extract 5% 31.34 28.37bc 33.63cd 30.99b 30.67cd 31.58cd 31.13b 28.53cd 30.84bc 29.68b 30.61bc
(500 g/10 lit water) (27.05) (22.58) (30.67) (26.51) (26.02) (27.42) (26.73) (22.81) (26.28) (24.52) (25.93)
7 Tobacco decoction 2% (cold method) 30.01 29.27bc 35.84de 32.55bc 33.69de 35.84de 34.77c 32.96de 35.10cd 34.03c 33.79cd
(200 g/10 lit water) (25.02) (23.90) (34.28) (28.95) (30.77) (34.28) (32.52) (29.60) (33.06) (31.32) (30.93)
8 Lantana camara leaf water extract 10% 30.67 30.01c 38.36e 34.19c 37.05e 38.46ef 37.76cd 35.00ef 37.05de 36.03c 35.99de
(1000 g/10 lit water) (26.02) (25.02) (38.51) (32.58) (36.30) (38.68) (37.50) (32.90) (36.30) (34.60) (34.53)
9 Green chilli water extract 10% 32.98 31.58c 38.39e 34.98c 37.72e 40.44f 39.08d 38.36f 41.08e 39.72d 37.93e
(1000 g/10 lit water) (29.63) (27.42) (38.57) (32.87) (37.43) (42.07) (39.74) (38.51) (43.18) (40.84) (37.79)
10 Control 28.37 40.44d 46.93f 43.78d 50.28f 55.02g 52.66e 59.35g 65.38f 62.36e 52.90f
(22.58) (42.07) (53.37) (47.87) (59.16) (67.13) (63.21) (74.01) (82.64) (78.48) (63.61)
S. Em.± Treatment (T) 1.39 1.37 1.27 0.98 1.45 1.34 1.02 1.49 1.40 1.04 1.08
Location (L) 0.83 0.79 0.70 0.54 0.69 0.78 0.56 0.85 0.78 0.57 0.32
TxL 2.64 2.52 2.21 1.69 2.51 2.47 1.77 2.68 2.46 1.80 1.01
C.D. at 0.05 % NS S S S S S S S S S S
C. V. % 14.67 14.84 11.05 12.96 13.34 12.70 13.09 14.78 12.39 13.40 13.80
Note: 1. Figures in parenthesis are retransformed values; those outside are arc sine transformed values.
2. Treatment mean(s) with the letter(s) in common are not significant by DNMRT at 5% level of significance
3. Significant parameters and its interactions: T, P, L, T x S, P x S, T x L where P= Period and S=Spray

1154
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(8): 1150-1160

Table.3 Evaluation of bio-pesticide against fall armyworm, S. frugiperda and its plant damage in maize (Pooled over locations)

Tr. Treatment No. of larva(e)/10 plants Plant damage (%)

No. Anand Sansoli Godhra Pooled Anand Sansoli Godhra Pooled
bc
1 Beauveria bassiana 5 % WP 1.99 1.63 1.52ab 1.71b 35.82b 26.76 cd
22.86bc 28.48b
(40 g/10 lit water) (3.46)* (2.16) (1.81) (2.42) (34.25)** (20.27) (15.09) (22.74)
2 Metarhizium anisopliae1.15% WP 2.06 1.72cd 1.64b 1.81c 37.85bc 28.69de 26.39de 30.97bc
(40 g/10 lit water) (3.74) (2.46) (2.19) (2.78) (37.65) (23.05) (19.76) (26.48)
3 Bacillus thuringiensis 1 % WG 1.82 1.44 a
1.49ab 1.59a 25.31a 23.39 ab
22.94cd 24.88a
(20 g/10 lit water) (2.81) (1.57) (1.72) (2.03) (18.28) (15.76) (15.19) (17.70)
a
4 Nomuraea rileyi 1%WP 1.78 1.40 1.36a (1.35) 1.52a 27.49a 22.04 a
19.66a 23.06a
(40 g/10 lit water) (2.67) (1.46) (1.81) (21.31) (14.08) (11.32) (15.34)
5 Azadirachtin 1500 ppm 2.00 1.56b 1.59b (2.03) 1.72bc 35.87b 24.75bc 26.30de 28.97b
(40 ml/10 lit water) (3.50) (1.93) (2.46) (37.33) (17.53) (19.63) (23.46)
6 Neem seed kernel extract 5% 2.01 1.61bc 1.67bc 1.77bc 36.86bc 26.02 cd
28.93ef 30.61bc
(500 g/10 lit water) (3.54) (2.09) (2.29) (2.63) (35.98) (19.24) (23.40) (25.93)
7 Tobacco decoction 2% (cold method) 2.15 1.82de 1.84cd 1.94d 39.48c 30.90ef 30.98fg 33.79cd
(200 g/10 lit water) (4.12) (2.81) (2.89) (3.26) (40.43) (26.37) (26.50) (30.93)
8 Lantana camara leaf water extract 2.23 1.91ef 1.96d (3.34) 2.04e 43.03d 32.98fg 31.97fg 35.99de
10% (1000 g/10 lit water) (4.47) (3.15) (3.66) (46.56) (29.63) (28.03) (34.53)
9 Green chilli water extract 10% 2.27 1.96f 2.01d (3.54) 2.08e 44.96d 35.10 g
33.72g 37.93e
(1000 g/10 lit water) (4.65) (3.34) (3.83) (49.93) (33.06) (30.82) (37.79)
10 Control 2.92 2.56g 2.61e 2.70f 56.14e 49.04h 53.52h 52.90f
(8.03) (6.05) (6.31) (6.79) (68.96) (57.03) (64.65) (63.61)
S. Em.± Treatment (T) 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.03 1.05 0.83 1.11 1.08
Location (L) - - - 0.02 - - - 0.32
TxL - - - 0.05 - - - 1.01
C. V. % 11.83 9.27 13.64 11.76 11.63 11.76 15.91 13.80
Note: 1. *Figures in parenthesis are retransformed values; those outside are transformed values
2.**Figures in parenthesis are retransformed values; those outside are arc sine transformed values
3. Treatment mean(s) with the letter(s) in common are not significant by DNMRT at 5% level of significance
4. Significant parameters and its interactions: T, P, L, T x S, P x S, where P= Period and S=Spray and
5. Significant parameters and its interactions: T, P, L, T x S, P x S, T x L (For plant damage)

1155
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(8): 1150-1160

Table.4 Evaluation of bio-pesticides against cob damage caused by fall armyworm, S. frugiperda in maize

Tr. No. Treatments Cob damage (%)

Anand Sansoli Godhra Pooled
1 Beauveria bassiana 5 % WP 32.98b 32.99b 30.98b 32.32b
(40 g/10 lit water) (29.63) (29.65) (26.50) (28.58)
b b b
2 Metarhizium anisopliae1.15% WP 35.20 35.20 35.20 35.20b
(40 g/10 lit water) (33.23) (33.23) (33.23) (33.23)
3 Bacillus thuringiensis 1 % WG 23.84a 23.84a 21.13a 22.94a
(20 g/10 lit water) (16.34) (16.34) (12.99) (15.19)
a a a
4 Nomuraea rileyi 1%WP 23.84 23.84 21.13 22.94a
(40 g/10 lit water) (16.34) (16.34) (12.99) (15.19)
5 Azadirachtin 1500 ppm 32.98b 32.99b 30.98b 32.32b
(40 ml/10 lit water) (29.63) (29.65) (26.50) (28.58)
b b b
6 Neem seed kernel extract 5% 35.20 35.20 35.20 35.20b
(500 g/10 lit water) (33.23) (33.23) (33.23) (33.23)
7 Tobacco decoction 2% (cold method) 35.20b 35.20b 35.20b 35.20b
(200 g/10 lit water) (33.23) (33.23) (33.23) (33.23)
8 Lantana camara leaf water extract 10% (1000 g/10 37.21b 37.21b 35.20b 36.54b
lit water) (36.57) (36.57) (33.23) (35.45)
b b b
9 Green chilli water extract 10% 37.21 37.21 35.20 36.54b
(1000 g/10 lit water) (36.27) (36.57) (33.23) (35.45)
10 Control 50.83c 48.83c 46.90c 48.85c
(60.11) (56.66) (53.31) (56.70)
S. Em.± Treatment (T) 2.82 2.67 2.31 1.32
Location (L) - - - 0.82
TxL - - 2.61
C. V. % 14.20 13.48 12.25 13.37
Note: 1. Figures in parenthesis are retransformed values; those outside are arc sine transformed values
2. Treatment mean(s) with the letter(s) in common are not significant by DNMRT at 5% level of significance
3. Significant parameters and its interactions: T and L

1156
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(8): 1150-1160

Table.5 Effect of bio-pesticides on grain and fodder yield of maize

Tr. Treatments Grain yield (kg/ha) Fodder yield (kg/ha)

No. Anand Sansoli Godhra Pooled Anand Sansoli Godhra Pooled
1 Beauveria bassiana 5 % WP 2558c 2710b 2482b 2584b 3399b 3532b 3585ab 3506bc
(40 g/10 lit water)
2 Metarhizium anisopliae1.15% WP 2412cd 2589bc 2147c 2383c 3255bc 3395b 3080cd 3244c
(40 g/10 lit water)
3 Bacillus thuringiensis 1 % WG 2837ab 3065a 2895a 2932a 3970a 4070a 4058a 4033a
(20 g/10 lit water)
4 Nomuraea rileyi 1%WP 2854a 3112a 2904a 2957a 4012a 4102a 4093a 4069a
(40 g/10 lit water)
5 Azadirachtin 1500 ppm 2618abc 2676b 2446b 2580b 3408b 3548b 3584ab 3513b
(40 ml/10 lit water)
6 Neem seed kernel extract 5% 2565bc 2654b 2117cd 2446bc 3266bc 3410b 3099bc 3259bc
(500 g/10 lit water)
7 Tobacco decoction 2% (cold 2227de 2388c 1978cd 2198d 3113bc 2924c 2613cd 2884d
method)
(200 g/10 lit water)
8 Lantana camara leaf water extract 2013ef 2378c 1877d 2089d 2977bc 2904c 2598d 2827d
10% (1000 g/10 lit water)
9 Green chilli water extract 10% 1928f 2351c 1874d 2051d 2885c 2892c 2558d 2779d
(1000 g/10 lit water)
10 Control 1617g 2067d 1576e 1753e 2313d 2407d 2069e 2263e
S. Em.± Treatment (T) 82.01 81.95 76.61 49.88 143.08 143.53 149.16 81.88
Location (L) - - - 25.37 - - - 45.94
TxL - - - 80.22 - - - 145.28
C. V. % 6.01 6.46 5.95 5.79 7.60 7.49 8.24 7.77
Note: 1. Treatment mean(s) with the letter(s) in common are not significant by DNMRT at 5% level of significance
2. Significant parameters and its interactions: T and L, T x L (Grain yield), T and L (Fodder yield)

1157
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(8): 1150-1160

The data on pooled over periods of second Grain yield (Kg/ha)

spray differed significantly to each other. The
significantly minimum plant damage was The highest grain yield recorded in the
noticed in plots treated with N. rileyi 1% WP treatment of N. rileyi 1% WP (2957 kg/ha)
(15.66%) and it was at par with B. among all the treated biopesticides and it was
thuringiensis 1 % WG (17.90%). These two at par with B. thuringiensis (2932 kg/ha). B.
treatments were found significantly superior bassiana 5% WP (2584 kg/ha), Azadirachtin
to rest of the bio-pesticides. Azadirachtin (2580 kg/ha) and neem seed kernel extract
1500 ppm (22.83%), B. bassiana 5% WP (2446 kg/ha) were found equal in registering
(23.18%) and neem seed kernel extracts grain yield of maize. The green chilli water
(26.73%) were found equally effective in extract recorded the lowest grain yield
reducing the plant damage caused by fall (2051kg/ha) and it was at par with L. camara
armyworm. The green chilli water extract leaf water extract (2089 kg/ha) and tobacco
recorded maximum plant damage (39.74%) decoction (2198 kg/ha).
and it was at par with L. camara leaf water
extract (37.50%). More or less similar results Fodder yield (Kg/ha)
were found after pooled over periods of third
spray as observed after pooled over periods of The highest fodder yield recorded in N. rileyi
second spray. 1% WP (4069 kg/ha) and it was at par with B.
thuringiensis (4033 kg/ha). Azadirachtin 1500
Overall, the data on pooled over periods, ppm (3513.3 kg/ha), B. bassiana 5% WP
sprays and locations showed minimum plant (3506 kg/ha) and neem seed kernel extract
damage in the treatment of N. rileyi 1%WP (3259 kg/ha) were found at par to each other
(15.34%) and it was at par with B. in production of fodder. The green chilli
thuringiensis 1 % WG (17.70%). B. bassiana water extract recorded the lowest (2779
5% WP (22.74%) and azadirachtin 1500 ppm kg/ha) fodder yield and it was at par with L.
(23.46%) were at par and next effective camara leaf water extract (2827 kg/ha) and
treatments against the pest. Of the tested bio- tobacco decoction (2884 kg/ha).
pesticides, green chilli water extract found
least effective by recording the highest plant These findings are in accordance with the
damage (37.79 %). findings of Mallapur et al., (2018) who
reported the high potentiality of N. rileyi in
Cob damage (%) combating the notorious invasive pest, S.
frugiperda in maize, whereas in Andhra
The data on cob damage pooled over the Pradesh 36.9 per cent infection of N. rileyi on
locations showed significant difference S. litura in ground nut field was observed
among the various biopesticides tested (Table (Vimala, 1994 and Sridher, 1996). Unlike
4). The lowest cob damage was recorded in chemical approaches, the entomopathogenic
plots treated with N. rileyi 1% WP (15.19 %) fungi can self-perpetuate where in, the
and B. thuringiensis (15.19%). The treatments farmers will be provided with an added
of B. bassiana 5% WP and azadirachtin 1500 advantage of avoiding repeated spraying
ppm found mediocre in their effectiveness which would save time, labour and money as
against the pest. The highest cob damage well it can safeguard the environment as it is
recorded in green chilli water extract (35.45 an eco-friendly approach. According to
%) and proved least effective in controlling Capalbo et al., (2001) mortality of neonate
the FAW in maize. larvae was 100 per cent within two days of

1158
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(8): 1150-1160

spraying of B. thuringiensis (Bt) and all larvae Journal of Biotechnology. 4:(2): 1-4.
were found dead on leaves. Among the Capinera, J. (2008). Fall armyworm,
pathogens, B. thuringiensis, M. anisopliae and Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith)
B. bassiana can cause significant mortality in (lepidoptera: noctuidae). Encyclopedia
FAW populations and help to reduce leaf of Entomology, pp.1409-1412.
defoliation in crops (Molina-Ochoa et al., Cruz, L. Viana, P. A. and Waquil, J. M.
2003). (2002). Maize cultivation: vegetative
and reproductive phase pests. Embrapa
It can be concluded that N. rileyi 1% WP (2 Maize and Sorghum Technical Report,
x108cfu/g) @ 40 g/10 litre water or B. 49.p. 8.
thuringiensis var. kurstaki 1% WG @ 20 g/10 Mallapur CP, Anjan Kumar Naik, Sireesh
litre water first at initiation of pest and Hagari, Praveen T, Patil RK and S
subsequent two sprays at 10 days interval Lingappa (2018). Potentiality of
found effective and economical for the Nomuraea rileyi (Farlow) Samson
management of fall armyworm, S. frugiperda against the fall armyworm, Spodoptera
infesting maize. frugiperda (J E Smith) infesting maize.
Journal of Entomology and Zoology
Acknowledgement Studies. 6(6): 1062-1067
Molina-Ochoa, J., Lezama-Gutierrez, R.,
We are grateful to Director of Research and Gonzalez- Ramirez, M., Lopez-
Dean PG Studies, Principal and Dean (Agri.), Edwards, M., Rodriguez-Vega, M. A.,
BACA, Unit Head, ARS, AAU, Sansoli and & Arceo-Palacios, F. (2003). Pathogens
Research Scientist, MMRS, AAU, Godhra for and parasitic nematodes associated with
providing facilities for this research work. populations of fall armyworm
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae in
References Mexico. Florida Entomologist, 86, 244–
253.
Almeida de Moraes, A. R., Lourençao, A. L., Murúa, G. and Virla E. (2004). Population
Paterniani, A. M. E. G. Z. (2015). parameters of Spodoptera frugiperda
Resistance of conventional and isogenic (Smith) (Lep.:Noctuidae) fed on corn
transgenic maize hybrids to Spodoptera and two predominant grasses in
frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Tucuman (Argentina). ActaZool Mex,
Bragantia, Campinas, 74(1): 50-57. 20:199–210.
Bohnenblust, E. W., Breining, J. A., Shaffer, Shylesha, A. N., Jalali, S. K., Gupta, A.,
J. A. Fleischer, S. J. Roth, G. W. and Varshney, R., Venkatesan, T., Shetty,
Tooker, J. F. (2014). Current European P., Ojha, R., Ganiger, P. C., Navik, O.,
corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis, injury Subahara, K., Bakthavatsalam, N.,
levels in the north-eastern United States Ballal, C. R., and Raghavendra, A.
and the value of Bt field corn. Pest (2018). Studies on new invasive pest
Management Science 70:1711–1719. Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith)
Capalbo D M Fontana, Fernando Hercule (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and its natural
Valicente, Iracema de Oliveira Moraes enemies. J. of Biological control, 32:3.
and Lúcia Helena Pelizer (2001). Solid- Sisodiya, D. B., Raghnandan, B. L., Bhatt, N.
state fermentation of Bacillus A., Verma, H. S. Shewale, C. P.,
thuringiensis tolworthi to control fall Timbdiya, B. G. and Borad, P. K.
armyworm in maize. EJB Electronic (2018). The fall armyworm, Spodoptera

1159
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(8): 1150-1160

frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera, 4:142-147.

Noctuidae) First report of new invasive Vimala DPS. (1994). Conidia production of
pest in maize fields of Gujarat, India. the entomopathogenic fungus
Journal of Entomology and Zoology Nomuraea rileyi and its evaluation for
studies, 6(5): 2089-2091. control of Spodoptera litura (Fabr.) on
Sridher V, Prasad VO. (1996). Life table Ricinus cummunis. J Invertebrate
studies on natural population of Pathology.63:145-150.
Spodoptera litura on Ground nut.
Annals of Plant Protection Sciences.

How to cite this article:

Dhobi, C. B., M. B. Zala, H. S. Verma, D. B. Sisodiya, R. K. Thumar, M. B. Patel, J. K. Patel

and Borad, P. K. 2020. Evaluation of Bio-pesticides against Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera
frugiperda (J. E. Smith) in Maize. Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci. 9(08): 1150-1160.
doi: https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.908.127

1160

View publication stats