sustainable management of aphids on...
TRANSCRIPT
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF APHIDS ON CANOLA IN ORGANIC AND INORGANIC FARMING SYSTEMS IN
PUNJAB, PAKISTAN.
By
QAISAR ABBAS 2000-ag-1387
M.Sc. (Hons.) Agri. Entomology
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
AGRICULTURAL ENTOMOLOGY
FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, FAISALABAD (PAKISTAN)
(2012)
DECLARATION I hereby affirm that the contents of this thesis “Sustainable Management of Aphids on
Canola in Organic and Inorganic Farming Systems in Punjab, Pakistan” are the product of my
research and no part has been copied from any published source (except the references, standard
mathematical or genetic models/equation /protocols etc,). I further declare that this work has not
been submitted for award of any other diploma /degree. The University may take action if the information provided is found inaccurate at any stage.
QAISAR ABBAS 2000-ag-1387
The Controller of Examinations, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.
We, the Supervisory Committee, certify that the contents and form of thesis submitted
by Mr. Qaisar Abbas, Regd. No. 2000-ag-1387 have been found satisfactory and
recommend that it be processed for evaluation by the external examiner(s) for the award of
the degree.
SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: CHAIRMAN:
(Dr. Muhammad Jalal Arif)
MEMBER:
(Dr. Muhammad Ashfaq (T.I) MEMBER:
(Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khan)
ADDITIONAL MEMBER: _______________ (Dr. Hussnain Ali Sayyed)
D E D I C A T I O N
This humble effort is dedicated to
my ever-loving parents
M R a n d M R S Z A H I D A B B A S
Who uplift, encourage, motivate and pray for me to achieve the targets of
my life successfully with the help of
ALLAH.
OH! MY ALMIGHTY ALLAH,
MAKE ME
AN INSTRUMENT OF YOUR PEACE
WHERE, THERE IS HATRED, LET ME SOW LOVE,
WHERE THERE IS INJURY, PARDON WHERE THERE IS DOUBT, FAITH WHERE THERE IS DESPAIR, HOPE
WHERE THERE IS DARKNESS, LIGHT AND WHERE THERE IS SADNESS, JOY.
CONTENTS
Chapter No. TITLE Page No.
LIST OF TABLES i
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF APPENDICES vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATION vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viii
ABSTRACT ix
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 OIL SEED CROPS IN PAKISTAN 1 1.2 IMPORTANCE OF CANOLA CROP 1 1.3 CANOLA PRODUCTION IN PAKISTAN AND
ITS MAJOR PRODUCTION CONSTRAINTS 2
1.4 ORGANIC FARMING AS A SOURCE FOR PEST MANAGEMENT
2
1.5 INSECT PESTS OF CANOLA 3 1.6 APHID, A DEVASTATING PEST TO CANOLA 3 1.7 MANAGEMENT OF APHIDS 4 1.8 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 5
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 6
2.1 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF APHIDS AND THEIR NATURAL ENEMIES IN CANOLA
6
2.2 HOST PLANT RESISTANCE 6 2.3 BIOCHEMICAL PLANT FACTORS 7 2.4 EFFECT OF CLIMATIC CONDITIONS ON
THE POPULATION DYNAMICS OF APHIDS 7
2.5 EFFECTS OF SOIL FERTILITY ON APHIDS POPULATION
8
2.6 BIOLOGY OF APHIDS 9 2.7 MANAGEMENT OF APHIDS ON CANOLA 9 2.7.1 CULTURAL CONTROL 9
2.7.2 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL 10 2.7.3 CHEMICAL CONTROL 10 2.7.4 DEVELOPMENT OF INTEGRATED PEST
MANAGEMENT 11
3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 13
3.1 POPULATION DISTRIBUTIONS OF APHIDS AND THEIR NATURAL ENEMIES ON CANOLA IN PUNJAB
13
3.2 EFFECT OF CANOLA CULTIVARS WITH VARYING LEVELS OF RESISTANCE TO APHID UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING CONDITIONS (SYNTHETIC FERTELIZERS AND FARM YARD MANURE APLLICATION)
13
3.3 BIOCHEMICAL PLANT CHARACTERS OF SELECTED CANOLA GENOTYPES AND THEIR CORRELATION WITH APHID POPULATION
14
3.3.1 BIOCHEMICAL PLANT FACTOR 14 3.3.1.1 Nitrogen 14 3.3.1.2 Crude Protein 15 3.3.1.3 Lipid Content 15 3.3.1.4 Crude Fiber 15 3.3.1.5 Sample Digestion for Macro Nutrients 15 3.3.1.6 Phosphorus 15 3.3.1.7 Potassium and Sodium 16 3.3.2 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BIOCHEMICAL
PLANT CHARACTERS 16
3.4 DETERMINATION OF THE ROLE OF WEATHER FACTORS ON POPULATION FLUCTUATIONS OF APHIDS
16
3.5 STUDIES ON THE BIOLOGY OF APHIDS UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEMS (SYNTHETIC FERTELIZERS AND FARM YARD MANURE APLLICATION)
17
3.6 DETERMINATION OF YIELD LOSSES, CAUSED BY APHIDS IN CANOLA UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEMS (SYNTHETIC FERTELIZERS AND FARM YARD MANURE APPLICATION)
17
3.7 EFFICACY OF SELECTIVE INSECTICIDES 18
3.8 EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT CONTROL METHODS IN VARIOUS COMBINATIONS TO DETERMINE THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND ECONOMICAL METHOD AGAINST APHIDS FOR RECOMMENDATION TO FARMERS
19
4 RSEULTS AND DISSCUSSION 21
(SECTION-I) 21 4.1 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF APHIDS
AND THEIR NATURAL ENEMIES ON CANOLA IN PUNJAB, PAKISTAN
21
4.1.1 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF APHIDS ON CANOLA IN PUNJAB, PAKISTAN
21
4.1.1.1 Population distribution of Brevicoryne brassicae on canola crop at various intervals of observation in different Districts of Punjab during 2008 and 2009
21
4.1.1.2 Population distribution of Myzus persicae on canola at various intervals of observation in different Districts of Punjab during 2008 and 2009
24
4.1.1.3 Population distribution of Lipaphis erysimi on canola crop at various intervals of observation in different Districts of Punjab during 2008 and 2009
26
4.1.2 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL ENEMIES ON CANOLA IN PUNJAB, PAKISTAN
28
4.1.2.1 Population fluctuation of Ladybird beetle during 2008 and 2009 in various Districts of Punjab and during different dates of observation
28
4.1.2.2 Population fluctuation of Green lacewing during 2008 and 2009 in various Districts of Punjab and during different dates of observation
30
4.1.2.3 Population fluctuation of syrphid flies during 2008 and 2009 in various districts of Punjab and during different dates of observation
32
4.1.3 DISCUSSION 34 4.1.3.1 Population distribution of aphid species (Brevicoryne
brassicae, Myzus persicae and Lipaphis erysimi) on canola in various Districts of Punjab during 2008 and 2009
34
4.1.3.2 Population densities of natural enemies (ladybird beetle, green lacewing and syrphid fly) attacking aphids on canola in various Districts of Punjab during 2008 and 2009
35
SECTION-II 37 4.2 THE EFFECT OF CANOLA CULTIVARS
WITH VARYING LEVELS OF RESISTANCE TO APHIDS UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEMS IN FIELD CONDITIONS (SYNTHETIC FERTELIZERS AND FARM YARD MANURE APLLICATION)
37
4.2.1 EFFECT OF CANOLA CULTIVARS WITH VARYING LEVELS OF RESISTANCE TO APHIDS UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEM (SYNTHETIC FERTELIZERS AND FARM YARD MANURE APLLICATION)
37
4.2.1.1 Population of cabbage aphid Brevicoryne brassicae on canola genotypes under different farming systems during 2009 and 2010
37
4.2.1.1.1 Population of cabbage aphid (B. brassicae) on canola during different dates of observation under farming systems during 2009 and 2010
41
4.2.1.2 Population of green peach aphid (M. persicae) on canola genotypes under different farming systems during 2009-2010
43
4.2.1.2.1 Population of the green peach aphid Myzus persicae on canola during different dates of observation under experimental farming systems during 2009 and 2010
46
4.2.1.3 Population of mustard aphid Lipaphis erysimi on canola genotypes under different farming systems during 2009 and 2010
48
4.2.1.3.1 Population of mustard aphid Lipaphis erysimi on canola during different dates of observation under different farming systems during 2009 and 2010.
51
4.2.2 POPULATION FLUCTUATION OF NATURAL ENEMIES OF APHIDS ON CANOLA CROP UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEM DURING DIFFERENT DATES OF OBSERVATION IN 2009 AND 2010
53
4.2.2.1 Population of Ladybird beetle on canola under different farming system during different dates of observation in 2009and 2010
53
4.2.2.2 Population of green lacewing on canola under different farming system during different dates of observation in 2009 and 2010
55
4.2.2.3 Populations of syrphid fly on canola under different farming system during different dates of observation in 2009 and 2010
57
4.2.3 DISSCUSSION 59
4.2.3.1 To study the effect of canola cultivars with varying levels of resistance to aphids under different farming systems (synthetic fertilizers and farm yard manure application)
59
4.2.3.2 Population fluctuation of natural enemies of aphids on canola crop under different farming systems (synthetic fertilizers and farm yard manure application) during different dates of observation in 2009-10
61
SECTIONIII 62 4.3 BIOCHEMICAL PLANT CHARACTERS OF
SELECTED CANOLA GENOTYPES AND THEIR CORRELATION WITH APHID POPULATION
62
4.3.1 NITROGEN 62 4.3.2 PHOSPHOROUS 62 4.3.3 PROTEIN 65 4.3.4 FAT 65 4.3.5 SODIUM 67 4.3.6 POTASSIUM 67 4.3.7 FIBER 67 4.3.8 IMPACT OF VARIOUS CHEMICAL PLANT
FACTORS ON THE POPULATION OF APHIDS OF CANOLA GROWN UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEM (SYNTHETIC FERTELIZERS AND FARM YARD MANURE APPLICATION)
70
4.3.8.1 Simple Correlation 70 4.3.8.2 Multiple Linear Regression models to determine impact
of chemical factors in population fluctuation canola aphids under different farming systems.
74
4.3.9 DISCUSSION 78 4.3.9.1 Biochemical plant characters 78
SECTIONIV 80 4.4 INTERACTION BETWEEN WEATHER
FACTORS AND POPULATION OF CANOLA APHIDS DURING 2009 AND 2010
80
4.4.1 POPULATION OF CANOLA APHIDS VERSUS WEATHER FACTOR DURING 2009 AND 2010
80
4.4.2 ROLE OF ABIOTIC FACTORS ON THE APHIDS INFESTATION
82
4.4.2.1 Simple correlation between weather factors and population of aphids on canola
82
4.4.2.2 Multiple Linear Regression Models 84 4.4.3 DISCUSSION 87
SECTIONV 88 4.5 BIOLOGY OF APHIDS (BREVICORYNE
BRASSICAE, MYZUS PERSICAE AND LIPAPHIS ERYSIMI) UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEMS (SYNTHETIC FERTELIZERS AND FARM YARD MANURE APLLICATION)
88
4.5.1 NYMPHAL LONGEVITY 88 4.5.2 ADULT LONGEVITY 88 4.5.3 AVERAGE NUMBER OF NYMPHS 89 4.5.4 PRE REPRODUCTIVE PERIOD 89 4.5.5 REPRODUCTIVE PERIOD 89 4.5.6 POST REPRODUCTIVE PERIOD 89 4.5.7 TOTAL LIFE SPAN 89 4.5.8 DISCUSSION 93
SECTIONVI 94 4.6 DETERMINATION OF YIELD LOSSES,
CAUSED BY APHIDS IN CANOLA UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEMS (SYNTHETIC FERTELIZERS AND FARM YARD MANURE APPLICATION)
94
4.6.1 PLANT HEIGHT 94 4.6.2 NUMBER OF BRANCHES 94 4.6.3 NUMBER OF PODS PER PLANT 97 4.6.4 AVERAGE NUMBER OF SEED PER POD 97 4.6.5 THOUSAND SEED WEIGHT 97 4.6.6 YIELD LOSS/PLOT 97 4.6.7 DISCUSSION 100
SECTIONVII 101 4.7.1 EFFICACY SELECTIVE OF INSECTICIDES 101 4.7.1.1 Percent reduction in population of aphids 24 hours after
application 101
4.7.1.2 Percent reduction in population of aphids 48 hours after application
101
4.7.1.3 Percent reduction in population of aphids 72 hours after application
101
4.7.1.4 Percent reduction in population of aphids 168 hours after application
102
4.7.2 INTEGRATION OF VARIOUS CONTROL METHODS AGAINST APHIDS DURING 2010 AND 2011
104
4.7.2.1 Percent reduction in population of aphids 24 hour after application of different treatments
104
4.7.2.2 Percent reduction in population of aphids 48 hours after application of different treatments
104
4.7.2.3 Percent reduction in population of aphids 72 hours after application of treatment
104
4.7.2.4 Percent reduction in population of aphids 168 hours after application of different treatments
105
4.7.3 YIELD AND COST BENEFIT RATIO OF DIFFERENT TREATMENTS UNDER ORGANIC (FARM YARD MANURE APPLICATION) AND INORGANIC (SYNTHETIC FERTILIZER APPLICATION) FARMING SYSTEM
110
4.7.4 DISCUSSION 121 4.7.4.1 Efficacy of insecticide 121 4.7.4.2 Integration of control techniques 121
5 SUMMARY 123
5.1 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF APHIDS AND THEIR NATURAL ENEMIES ON CANOLA IN PUNJAB, PAKISTAN
123
5.2 ABUNDANCE OF APHIDS AND ITS NATURAL ENEMIES ON VARIOUS CANOLA GENOTYPES UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEMS
123
5.3 BIOCHEMICAL PLANT FACTOR 124 5.4 EFFECT OF WEATHER FACTORS ON
APHID POPULATION 125
5.5 BIOLOGY OF APHIDS (BREVICORYNE BRASSICAE, MYZUS PERSICAE AND LIPAPHIS ERYSIMI) ON CANOLA GROWN UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEMS
125
5.6 THE YIELD LOSSES, CAUSED BY APHIDS, UNDER FIELD CONDITIONS, ON THE RESISTANT AND SUSCEPTIBLE GENOTYPES OF CANOLA ON BOTH SYSTEM OF FARMING
126
5.7 INTEGRATION OF VARIOUS CONTROL METHODS AGAINST APHIDS DURING 2010 AND 2011
127
RECOMMENDATIONS 128
LITERATURE CITED 130
APPENDICES 144
i
LIST OF TABLES
Sr. No. TITLE Page No. 2.1 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of cabbage
aphids on various canola genotypes under different farming systems during 2009
39
2.2 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of cabbage aphids on various canola genotypes under different farming systems during 2010
40
2.3 Mean Comparison of date regarding the population of Brevicoryne brassicae on canola during different dates of observation under farming systems during 2009
42
2.4 Mean Comparison of date regarding the population of Brevicoryne brassicae on canola during different dates of observation under farming systems during 2010
42
2.5 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of green peach aphid (M. persicae) on various canola genotypes under different farming conditions during 2009
44
2.7 Mean comparison of date regarding the population of Myzus persicae on canola during different dates of observation under farming systems during 2009
47
2.8 Mean comparison of date regarding the population of Myzus persicae on canola during different dates of observation under farming systems during 2010
47
2.9 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of mustard aphid Lipaphis erysimi on various canola genotypes under different farming systems during 2009
49
2.10 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of mustard aphid Lipaphis erysimi on various canola genotypes under different farming systems during 2010
50
2.11 Mean comparison of date regarding the population of mustard aphid Lipaphis erysimi on canola during different dates of observation under farming Systems during 2009
52
2.12 Mean comparison of date regarding the population of mustard aphid Lipaphis erysimi on canola during different dates of observation under farming Systems during 2010
52
2.13 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of ladybird beetle during different dates of observation under different farming systems during 2009
54
2.14 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of ladybird beetle during different dates of observation under different farming systems
54
2.15 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of green lacewing during different dates of observation under different farming systems during 2009
56
ii
2.16 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of green lacewing during different dates of observation under different farming systems during 2010
56
2.17 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of Syrphid fly during different dates of observation under different farming systems during 2009
58
2.18 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of Syrphid fly during different dates of observation under different farming systems during 2010
58
3.1 Comparison of means for the data on the nitrogen (%) of different selected genotypes canola (Brassica napus)
64
3.2 Comparison of means for the data on the phosphorous (%) of different selected genotypes canola (Brassica napus)
64
3.3 Comparison of means for the data on the crude protein (%) of different selected genotypes canola (Brassica napus)
66
3.4 Comparison of means for the data on the fat (%) of different selected genotypes canola (Brassica napus)
66
3.5 Comparison of means for the data on the sodium (%) of different selected genotypes canola (Brassica napus)
68
3.6 Comparison of means for the data on the potassium (%) of different selected genotypes canola (Brassica napus)
68
3.7 Comparison of means for the data on the fiber (%) of different selected genotypes canola (Brassica napus)
69
3.8 Correlation matrix for Aphid population and different biochemical plant parameters of canola grown under synthetic fertelizer application(FS1)
71
3.9 Correlation matrix Aphid population and different biochemical plant parameters of canola grown farm yard manure application(FS2)
72
3.10 Correlation matrix for Aphid population and different biochemical plant parameters of canola grown under control conditions(FS3)
73
3.11 (a) Multiple linear regression models explaining the effect of different biochemical plant characteristic on aphids population under different farming systems. (a) Multiple linear regression model for nitrogen
75
3.11 (b) Multiple linear regression model for Phosphorous 75 3.11 (c) Multiple linear regression model for potassium 75 3.11 (d) Multiple linear regression model for protein 76 3.11 (e) Multiple linear regression model for sodium 76 3.11 (f) Multiple linear regression model for fat 76 3.11 (g) Multiple linear regression model for fiber 77
4.1 Correlation between weather factors and Aphids population during 2009
83
4.2 Correlation between weather factors and Aphids population during 2010
83
iii
4.3 Multiple linear regression models between population of canola aphids and weather factors during 2009
85
4.4 Multiple linear regression models between population of canola aphids and weather factors during 2010
86
5.1 Mean Comparison of data regarding the biology of canola aphids on different farming systems during 2010
91
5.2 Mean Comparison of data regarding the biology of canola aphids on different farming systems during 2011
92
6.1 Mean comparison of data regarding % Losses in plant height under different farming systems
96
6.2 Mean comparison of data regarding% Losses in Number of branches under different farming systems
96
6.3 Mean comparison of data regarding % losses in average number of pods/plant under different farming systems
98
6.4 Mean comparison of data regarding % losses in Average seed/pod under different farming systems
98
6.5 Mean comparison of data regarding % losses in thousand seed weight under different farming systems
99
6.6 Mean comparison of data regarding% losses in yield under different farming systems
99
7.1 Mean comparison of data regarding efficacy of different insecticides against aphids on canola crop during 2010
103
7.2 Mean comparison of data regarding efficacy of Insecticides against aphids on canola crop during 2011
103
7.3 Means comparison of data regarding population reduction in aphids 24 hours after the application of treatment
106
7.4 Means comparison of data regarding population reduction in aphids 48 hours after the application of treatment
107
7.5 Means comparison of data regarding population reduction in aphids 72 hours after the application of treatment
108
7.6 Means comparison of data regarding population reduction in aphids 168 hours after the application of treatment
109
7.7 Cost benefit ratio of different treatments under organic (farm yard manure application) and inorganic (synthetic fertilizer application) farming system
119
7.8 Yield (kg/acre) produced in different treatments under organic (farm yard manure application) and inorganic (synthetic fertilizer application) farming system
120
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Sr. No. TITLE Page No. 1.1 Population distribution of cabbage aphid (Means±SE) on canola
crop in various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2008.23
1.2 Population distribution of cabbage aphid (Means±SE) on canola crop in various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2009.
23
1.3 Population distribution of Green Peach Aphid (Means±SE) on canola crop in various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2008.
25
1.4 Population distribution of Green Peach Aphid (Means±SE) on canola crop in various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2009.
25
1.5 Population distribution of Turnip Aphid (Means±SE) on canola crop in various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2008.
27
1.6 Population distribution of Turnip Aphid (Means±SE) on canola crop in various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2009.
27
1.7 Population distribution of Lady bird beetle (Means±SE) on canola crop in various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2008.
29
1.8 Population distribution of Lady Bird beetle (Means±SE) on canola crop in various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2009.
29
1.9 Population distribution of Green Lacewing (Means±SE) on canola crop in various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2008.
31
1.10 Population distribution of Green Lacewing (Means±SE) on canola crop in various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2009.
31
1.11 Population distribution of Syrphid Fly (Means±SE) on canola crop in various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2008.
33
1.12 Mean comparisons of data regarding the population of syrphid fly in various areas of Punjab, Pakistan in 2009
33
4.1 Graphical representation of impact of weather factors on population of canola aphids during 2009
81
4.2 Graphical representation of impact of weather factors on population of canola aphids during 2010
81
v
LIST OF APPENDICES
Sr. No. TITLE Page No.
1 Analysis of variance of the data regarding population distribution of cabbage aphids (B. brassicae) on canola during 2008
145
2 Analysis of variance of the data regarding population distribution of cabbage aphids (B. brassicae) on canola during 2009
145
3 Analysis of variance of the data regarding population distribution of green peach aphids (M. persicae) on canola during 2008
145
4 Analysis of variance of the data regarding population distribution of green peach aphids (M. persicae) on canola during 2009
146
5 Analysis of variance of the data regarding population distribution of mustard aphids (L. erysimi) on canola during 2008
146
6 Analysis of variance of the data regarding population distribution of turnip aphids (L. erysimi) on Canola during 2009
146
7 Analysis of Variance For the data regarding effect of canola cultivars with varying levels of resistance to cabbage aphids under different farming systems during 2009
147
8 Analysis of Variance For the data regarding effect of canola cultivars with varying levels of resistance to cabbage aphids under different farming systems during 2010
147
9 Analysis of Variance For the data regarding effect of canola cultivars with varying levels of resistance to green peach aphids under different farming systems during 2009
148
10 Analysis of Variance For the data regarding effect of canola cultivars with varying levels of resistance to green peach aphids under different farming systems during 2010
148
11 Analysis of Variance For the data regarding effect of canola cultivars with varying levels of resistance to turnip aphids under different farming systems during 2009
149
12 Analysis of Variance For the data regarding effect of canola cultivars with varying levels of resistance to turnip aphids under different farming systems during 2010
149
vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS FS Farming System
FS1 Fertilizer application
FS2 Farm Yard Manure application
FS3 Control
CA Cabbage Aphid
GPA Green peach aphid
MA/TA Mustard Aphid/Turnip Aphid
Cv Coefficient of Variation
CBR Cost Benefit Ratio
Cf Crude fiber
CHO Carbohydrates
cm Centimeter
cm2 Centimeter square
Cp Crude protein
FD Frequency of Distribution
Fig. Figure
g Gram
ha-1 Per hectare
K Potassium
LSD Least Significant Difference
M Moisture
m Meter
N Nitrogen
Na Sodium
P Phosphorus
LSD Least Significant Difference
IPM Integrated Pest Management
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS All the prayers and praises are for ALMIGHTY ALLAH (Jalla- Jalalaho), The
Unique, The Merciful, The Compassionate, The Provider and the source of all knowledge
and guidance who never spoils the efforts. I consider it as my foremost duty to acknowledge
the Omni-present kindness and love of Almighty Allah, who made it possible for me to
complete the writing of this thesis. I consider it is my utmost duty to express gratitude and
respect to Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (SAW) and Ahlebait who are forever a torch of
guidance and knowledge for humanity as a whole.
I express my gratitude to my worthy supervisor Dr. Muhammad Jalal Arif, Professor
of Agri. Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad for his
keen interest, valuable suggestions, consistent encouragement, dynamic supervision and
sympathetic attitude during the course of this research endeavor.
I feel great pleasure to express a deep sense of gratitude to members of my
supervisory committee Dr. Muhammad Ashfaq (T.I), Professor and Dean Faculty of
Agriculture, Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khan, Professor and Chairman, Department of Plant
Pathology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Dr. Hussnain Ali
Sayyed, Foreign Faculty professor, Institute of Biotechnology, Bhaudin Zakryia University
Multan, Dr Muhammad Dildar Gogi, Assistant Professor, Department of Agri. Entomology
and Dr. Haider Karar, Incharge Entomological Research Sub-Station, Multan for their
positive attitudes, skilful, and marvelous guidance during this whole period of research.
I don’t have the words to acknowledge the moral and financial support of my father
Zahid Abbas and my Mother, who always prayed for my success. I also pay thanks to my
uncles, Mohsin Ali and Mir Muhammad, my brothers Khizar Abbas, Muhammad Yousaf
and Muhammad Younis, my cousins Qasim Ali, Kazam Ali, Abouzar, Salaman and
Meesam.
Thanks are also due to my friends Saqi Kasur Abbas, Muhammad Ahsan, Dr Ghulam
Abbas, Khalid Muhmood, Muhammad Amjed, Naeem Sarwer and Faheem Akhter. Sincere
thanks are given to the Higher Education Commission, Islamabad for granting the Ph.D.
scholarship under the Indigenous Ph.D. program
Finally I apologize if I have angered or offended anybody. QAISAR ABBAS
viii
ABSTRACT
Canola (Brassica napus L.) is the second most important source of vegetable oil after soybean. Its oil is widely used in cooking and for making salads and margarines, while the meal is commonly used in animal feeds all around the world. Pakistan, being an agricultural country, is still essentially deficient in edible oil production. It is estimated that more than three fourths of the country’s vegeTable oil requirements are met through imports. Canola is one potential crop which can fulfill the country’s requirement for edible oil. Insect pests are a major yield limiting factor of this crop. Among the insect pests, aphids are considered the major pest. Three aphid species are known to infest the canola crop, the cabbage aphid, Brevicoryne brassicae (L.), the turnip aphid, Lipaphis erysimi Kalt, and the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (all are Hemiptera: Aphididae). Heavy aphids attack on canola seedlings can cause wilting of the cotyledons and yellowing of the leaves. Heavy infestations of aphids on pods and flowers lead to yield reductions. Normally aphids cause about 30-35% yield losses on brassica plants but under uncontrolled situations the yield losses may exceed 70%. Control of the pest relies exclusively on pesticides. The indiscriminate use of pesticides has resulted in the development of resistance and resurgence by pests together with associated environmental and health hazards. This situation urgently demands alternate bio-intensive control measures as the main components of an IPM program. The present study was conducted on sustainable management of aphids on canola grown under organic and conventional farming systems in Punjab, Pakistan. The main objective of this study was to develop the most economical and effective management models by determining population distribution of aphids and their natural enemies, screening relatively tolerant crop genotypes, to identify sources of resistance, studying the biology of aphids and determining the efficacy of mechanical, biological and chemical practices for pest suppression. The results of these findings revealed that the cabbage aphids and mustard aphid were found in all four locations studied (Faisalabad, Bahawalpur, Khanpur and D.G. Khan) while the green peach aphid was recorded at two locations (Faisalabad and Khanpur).The genotypes ‘Cyclone’ , ‘Shiralee’ and Oscar were found to be susceptible with maximum population of aphids. The genotypes ‘Hyola-401’ and ‘Rainbow’ were observed to be relatively resistant with lower populations of aphids. The results regarding the biochemical basis of resistance revealed that the availability of nitrogen increases susceptibility, and crop genotypes and farming systems with more nitrogen inputs suffered higher aphid populations. The different evaluated farming systems significantly affected the total life span of aphids, and maximum numbers of nymphs were produced on canola grown under fertilizer applications. All tested insecticides (Carbosulfan, Acetamaprid, Imidacloprid, Nitenpyram and Profenofos) were found to be effective against aphids and reduced population densities. Results revealed that treatments consisting of chrysoperla + coccinellid + blank water spray were highly effective against aphids on canola under both systems of farming. Predators performed well one week after release and their efficacy increased over time. A higher and noticeable yield was obtained under inorganic farming system where Chrysoperla carnea, coccinellids and blank water spray were integrated or blank water spray was applied. However, a higher CBR (10.36:1) was attained under organic (farm yard manure application) where blank water spray was applied on the canola crop. Integration of C. carnea, coccinellids and blank water spray under organic farming system also produced a rationally higher CBR (4.02:1). In conclusion, organic farming system (FYM application) with blank water spray or integration of C. carnea, coccinellids and blank water spray is better option and recommendation for aphid management in canola.
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 OIL SEED CROPS IN PAKISTAN
Agriculture is second largest economic sector in the economy of Pakistan, accounting
for more than 21% of the GDP and 45% of the country’s total labor force (Anonymous,
2010). More than 62% of the population residing in rural areas is directly or indirectly linked
with the agriculture sector for their livelihood. Rapidly increasing population size and
urbanization have increased demands for food, fiber and fuel. Pakistan has become the third
largest edible oil importer in the world. Edible oil consumption in Pakistan during 2008 was
2.821 million tons, whereas the domestic production remained at 684 thousand tons, only
24% of the total availability. The rest of 76% edible oil was made available through imports
(Anonymous, 2008).
Oil seed crops of Pakistan are categorized as conventional (mustard, rapeseed, sesame
and ground nut) and non conventional crops (cotton, maize, rice bran). Non-true oilseed
crops like cotton, maize, etc. are contributing up to 73% towards the national edible oil
production in the country, while conventional oilseeds (rapeseed & mustard) rank second and
contribute about 18-20% in the domestic edible oil production (Anonymous, 2007).
1.2 IMPORTANCE OF CANOLA CROP
Canola (Brassica napus L.), an oilseed crop, has now become the second most
important source of vegetable oil after soybean in the world. It is a genetically altered and
improved version of rapeseed, developed through conventional breeding from rapeseed.
It has been used as a fuel for a long period in ancient times (Raymer, 2002). The rapeseed oil
has an idiosyncratic taste and a unpleasant greenish color due to presence of erucic acid
which is injurious for health. But the canola oil contains less quantity of erucic acid (>2%)
and glucosinolate (>30 mm) (consumer and corporate affair, 1986). Canola seeds commonly
contain 40% or more oil and produce meals with 35–40% protein. Its oil is widely used for
cooking, purposes, while the meals are commonly used in animal feed around the world
(Raymer, 2002). During the last 20 years, this crop has passed sunflower, peanut and
cottonseed on production bases in the world. Major canola producing regions are Canada,
USA, China, Australia, Northern Europe and Indian sub- continent (Downey, 1990).
2
1.3 CANOLA PRODUCTION IN PAKISTAN AND ITS MAJOR PRODUCTION CONSTRAINTS
Pakistan being an agricultural country is still essentially deficient in edible oil
production. The major oilseed crops grown in Pakistan are cottonseed, rapeseed, sunflower
and canola. cottonseed contributing 75% of local oil production, which is followed by
rapeseed, mustard and canola contributing 15% of edible oil, while, sunflower, soybean,
safflower and corn contribute the remaining 10%. Inspite of these oil seed crops grown, there
is still shortage of edible oil. It is estimated that more than three fourth of country’s
requirement are met through import. Consumption of oil has increased from 0.3 million to
1.9 million tonnes during last two decades (Anonymous, 2004). The domestic production of
edible oil during 1991-92 was 0.486 million ton, which substantially increase to 0.46 million
tones due to canola and sunflower. To increase oil production for our country requirement it
is necessary to search such crops which has more oil. Among oil producing crops the canola
crop is one of the potential crops which can fulfill the country requirement of edible oil. It
can be grown throughout the country as a short duration crop and it requires minimum
irrigation for maturity. During the year 2009-10, it was cultivated on an area of 142000 acres
with production of 76000 tonnes of seed and 29000 tonnes of oil (Anonymous, 2009). But
the average yield of canola is very low as compared with other canola growing countries of
the world. There are many reasons for low production of canola i.e., insect pests, water
shortage, high weed density and cultivation of low yielding varieties (Hati et al., 2001;
Rahnema and Bakhshandeh, 2006).
1.4 ORGANIC FARMING AS A SOURCE FOR PEST MANAGEMENT
Fertilizers are considered as one of the major inputs for better agricultural production.
The different forms of inputs can manipulate the pest populations in different ways in agro
ecosystem depending on the type of fertilizer used; crop grown and insect pest present
(Sudhakar et al, 1998). Fertilizers have some disadvantages, for example the use of synthetic
fertilizers in crops can reduce the resistance in plants against insect pests (Herm, 2002).
Nitrogen fertilization increases aphid attack on wheat (Hasken and Poehling, 1995) and
Aphis fabae Scopoli in beans (Patriquin et al., 1988; Patriquin et al., 1995). On the other
hand, there are some reports in literature which indicates that field application of organic
matter as well as the traditional composts suppresses insect pest attack on crops (Culliney
3
and Pimentel, 1986; Eeigenbrode and Pimentel, 1998; Rao, 2002). For example, organic
farming can suppress the corn aphids (Rhopalosiphum maidis), corn borer (Ostrinia
nubilalis) and shoot borer (Hypsipyla grandella) (Sudhakara et al., 1986; Phelan, 1995;
Morales et al., 2002). Further it has been proved that capability of plant resistance to insect
pest is strictly related to physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the soil.
Availability of soil nutrient not only affects the intensity of damage from insect pest but it
also affects capability of plants to recover from herbivores attack (Meyer, 2000). It has been
proved that crops grown in soil with high organic matter have been found to be more tolerant
as well as resistant to insect attacks (Ramesh et al., 2005). Keeping in view the present study
was planned to assess the ecological effects of organic and synthetic fertilizers on aphids and
their natural enemy’s populations.
1.5 INSECT PESTS OF CANOLA
The canola crop is attacked by a number of insect pests all over the world (Lamb,
1989). It has been recorded that more than 30 different kinds of invertebrates’ pest have been
found feeding on this crop. The complex of pest species varies with the crop stages and
production area (Stanlay and Marcroft, 1999; Micic, 2005a). The plants of this crop have
ability to withstand insect pest damage (Lamb, 1989), but only a few insects are regarded as
major pests viz., lucernflea, mites, diamond back moth, wire worm, cabbage butterfly, army
worm, looper, mustard sawfly, pea leaf miner and aphids (Hashmi, 1994; Miles and
Macdonald, 1999). Among these pests, the aphids are regarded as the key pests causing great
loss to canola crop (Rehman et al., 1987).
1.6 APHIDS, A DEVASTATING PEST OF CANOLA
Three major aphids species are known to infest the canola crop, these are cabbage
aphid, Brevicoryne brassicae (L.), the turnip aphid, Lipaphis erysimi Kalt, and the green
peach aphid, Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) (Rehman et al., 1987). These
cruciferous aphids mainly attack the flowers and pods of the crop across production regions.
In warm, dry autumns, some aphids may also develop their populations on crowns and
undersides of the leaves at vegetative stage (Kelm and Gadomski, 1995). For example, the
green peach aphid is often found on the underside of canola leaves during the establishment
but decrease the development in cold and wet conditions in winter season (Berlandier, 2004).
Heavy aphids attack on canola seedlings can cause wilting of the cotyledons and yellowing
4
of the leaves. Heavy infestations of aphids on the podding and flowering parts lead to
cessation and wilting of flowers (Berlandier, 2004). Normally aphids cause about 30-35%
yield losses on brassica plants (Butin and Raymer, 1994) but under uncontrolled situations
the yield losses may exceed up to 70% (Phadke, 1985; Prasad, 1992).
All three species can feed on a wide range of host plants, although turnip and cabbage
aphid have particular close relationship with brassica crop plants. They can thus establish
their populations on various other crops and weeds as well in the field (Ellis and Singh, 1993;
Blackman and Eastop, 2000). Cabbage aphids reproduce parthenogenetically and produce
young nymphs as fast as possible on actively growing parts of the plant (van Emden et al.,
1969). Some of the nymphs develop their wings and disperse to the new habitats. As the crop
or weed host are short lived so this movement is important for their survival (Hughes, 1963).
The aphid species L. erysimi normally reproduces through parthenogenesis and
female are viviparous through out the year. This aphid prefers high temperature as compared
to B. brassicae (Dixon, 1998). Unlike the L. erysimi and B. brassicae, M. persicae is
polyphagous and feeds on a wide range of host plants including several agricultural crops
(Blackman and Eastop, 2000). In addition to infesting the crop plants in field, the green
peach aphid (M. persicae) can readily attack vegetables and ornamental plants grown in the
greenhouse. This allows the high level survival in areas with inclement weather. The M.
persicae is also adapted to temperate climate and can develop well at temperature 4oC (Liu
and Meng, 1999). The incidence of aphids on canola begins from November and continues
untill February. In the beginning winged aphids appear on the crop plants which
subsequently produces nymphs and apterous forms are observed in the field. Aphids’ density
gradually increases from November to January (Devi et al., 2002).
1.7 MANAGEMENT OF APHIDS
Management of aphids is a key aspect to increase the production of canola.A lot of
conventional and modern techniques have however been tested to control aphid population
under certain limits but complete reliance has been on the use of pesticides (King, 1994;
Shanower et al., 1997). The indiscriminate use of pesticides has resulted in the development
of resistance and resurgence in the pest besides environmental and health hazards (Palikhe,
2002). A long-term management of this pest may be possible, through a well-planned pest-
management-program, usually with the utilization of host-plant-resistance, biocontrol agents,
5
mechanical control and chemical insecticides. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an
extensively adopted option of a plant protection model, which besides being sustainable,
reduces the production cost and makes accessible to the consumers a good quality product at
affordable prices. This approach employs host plant resistance, cultural, biological and
chemical control. Since these techniques have been tried separately, the present studies were
designed to develop a low cost sustainable management of aphids on canola crop under the
following objectives
1.8 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
Study the population distribution of aphids and their natural enemies on canola in
different districts of Punjab
Study the effect of canola cultivars with varying levels of resistance to aphids
under different farming systems
Study the biochemical plant characteristics of the selected genotypes of canola
and correlate them with aphid populations
Study the biology of aphids under conventional and IPM farming systems
Study the effect of climatic factors on aphid population phenology
Determine yield losses in canola caused by aphids, under field conditions, for
conventional and IPM farming
Integrate various aphid control methods to determine the most effective and
economical method for recommendation to farmers
6
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF APHIDS AND THEIR NATURAL ENEMIES IN CANOLA
Canola refers to cultivars of rapeseed and mustard (Brassica spp. Cruciferae) that
produces seed oil with less than 2% erucic acid and meal with less than 30 mmol of aliphatic
glucosinolates per gram (Raymer, 2002). This oil is widely used in cooking and for making
salad dressing and margarines while the meal is usually used in animal feeds. Canola is
grown in Khyber, Pakhtun Khaw, Sindh, and Punjab provinces of Pakistan. Various insect
pests have been reported attacking this crop in Pakistan (Ali and Muneer, 1984), but the
greatest yield losses are due to aphid infestations (Mandal, 1994). Occurrence and severity of
pest infestations have been found to be inconsistent during different cropping seasons (Sing
and Lal, 1999). Different researchers reported different times of beginning of aphid attacks
on canola. The pest attack is reported to start in early January (Biswas and Das, 2002) or
early February (Mar et al., 200; Aslam et al., 2002) depending upon location. Highest aphid
infestations have been recorded in mid (Sing and Lal, 1999; Biswas and Das, 2002) to late
February (Rohilla et al., 1996), or mid-March (Aslam et al., 2002). Population studies of
pests are important when developing pest management strategies. Some work has been done
on the distribution of aphids in canola in Pakistan (Aslam, 2005).
2.2 HOST PLANT RESISTANCE
Host plant resistance can affect the development rate of herbivorous insect pests
(Godfray, 1994). According to the “slow growth and high mortality” hypothesis of Benrey
and Deno, prolonged development of insect pests results in prolonged exposure to predators
and parasitoids, which increase the pest mortality. Plant species, on which insect pest
development is delayed, increase the vulnerability of pests to natural enemies and their rates
of parasitism (Benrey and Deno, 1997). Plants which are more vulnerable to pests are called
susceptible plants and those which are able to strongly tolerate attacks are considered
resistant. There are three general types of mechanisms for resistance based on how the pests
and plant interact i.e. antibiosis, antixenosis and tolerance, Antibiosis is defined as the
adverse effect that a plant may have on the pest because of chemicals or structures the plant
7
possesses. Antixenosis resistance involves behavioral factors that cause an insect not to
choose the plant for feeding or laying its eggs, While tolerance is a characteristic of some
plants that enable them to withstand or recover from insect or disease damage (Gebhardt and
Valkonen, 2001; Pedley and Martin, 2003). Host plant resistance is an important pest
management strategy used by modern farmers as early as 1924 (Palmer, 1960). An intensive
effort to search for resistance to aphids in brassicae crop started in 1940, when Lamb (1953)
evaluated five cultivars of brassica in field experiments at various sites in the North and
South islands of New Zealand. Resistance of brassica to cabbage aphids has also been
reported (Ellis and Singh, 1993). In 1992, high levels of resistance to cabbage aphids were
discovered in accessions of certain wild species of brassicae (Singh et al., 1994). Ellis and
Farrell tested resistance in six brassicae species against aphids and summarized the results as
follows: Brassica fructicola has very high level of antixenosis and antibiosis, while B.
spinecens has very high levels of antixenosis and moderate levels of antibiosis. B. insularis
exhibited very high levels of antixenosis and low levels of antibiosis (Ellis and Farrell, 1995).
2.3 BIOCHEMICAL PLANT FACTORS
Biochemical aspects of the resistance of canola against aphids have not been
investigated by scientists. This is however a very important aspect for pest management and
cultivar breeding, and it should be carefully studied to determine the basis of resistance in
canola against aphids. Previous researchers worked on biochemical plant factors that confer
resistance to pests of other crops. For example, Srivastava and Srivastava found that less
acidity in leaf extracts of a genotype in chick pea (Cicer aritinum) associated with
susceptibility of H. armigera (Srivastava and Srivastava, 1989). Yoshida and colleagues
reported a significant negative correlation between pod damage in gram and oxalic acid,
which have been found to have antibiotic effect on gram pod borer (Yoshida et al., 1997).
While in 2001, Ali worked on chick pea and concluded that varieties of chickpeas with high
amount of oxalic acid, hemicelluloses, acid detergent fiber and cellulose should be developed
to manage the increasing resistance of H. armigera to pesticides (Ali, 2001).
2.4 EFFECT OF CLIMATIC CONDITIONS ON THE POPULATION DYNAMICS OF APHIDS
Climatic factors like temperature, light, humidity, rain, have direct effects on insect
distribution and development. Among these factors, temperature plays the most important
8
role in determining the growth rate of insect (Singh, 1982; Bekhtia and sekhon, 1989). Singh
and colleagues tested the effect of climatic factors on mustard aphid on Indian brassica and
found that weather parameter had a significant role in governing the population growth of
aphids (Sigh et al., 2004). Many scientists (Aheer et al., 1994; Geza, 2000, Nasir and Ahmed
2001; Ashfaq et al., 2007; Aheer et al., 2008) reported that abiotic factors severely affected
the population growth of aphids. Aheer et al. (2007) and Wains et al. (2008) reported that
peak population of aphid species occurred during March when temperature rise from 7.7°C to
25°C. Nasir and Ahmed (2001) and Aheer et al. (2007, 2008) also reported that temperature
had a significant and positive role on aphid densities while relative humidity had a negative
and significant correlation with aphid population growth. Similarly, Smatas et al. (2008)
reviewed trends in aphid occurrence in spring barley from 1976 to 2007 and found that aphid
occurrence was more frequent, probably due to increasing average temperatures during the
last decade. Wains et al. (2008) demonstrated that rainfall had a positive significant effect on
aphid populations. Similarly, Srivastava et al. (1995) concluded that high rainfall during
January to mid February was favorable, but in last week of February and 1st week of March
rainfall was detrimental to aphid population growth.
2.5 EFFECTS OF SOIL FERTILITY ON APHID POPULATION
Marschner (1986) studied the mechanisms by which particular nutrients, can affect
plant resistance to pests and diseases. Nutritional status of crop plants affects many factors
such as the onset of senescence, growth pattern, thickness of epidermal cells, degree of
lignifications, and levels of secondary plant metabolites which alone or collectively affects
resistance of plant to pests and diseases. A strong deficiency or excess of nitrogen (N) in
plants attracts certain pathogens and insect pests (Joanna et al., 2009). In general, balanced
nutrient availability for optimal plant growth may also be optimal for plant resistance to
pathogen and pest (cole, 1997). Many of the factors which affect plant susceptibility to
pathogens and pests do so through their influence on plant N metabolism. Growth and
development of insect pests can be stimulated by high levels of protein amino acids, and are
restricted by certain non-protein amino acids (Prestidge and McNeill, 1983). According to
Mattson (1980), Koritsas and Garsed (1985), fertilizing crops with nitrogen, insufficient K
potassium, application of certain pesticides (Oka and Pimentel, 1976; Chaboussou, 1982) and
9
other stresses on crop plants may lead to increased susceptibility to pests by increasing levels
of free amino acids (Van Embden, 1966; White, 1984).
2.6 BIOLOGY OF APHIDS
The major aphid taxa have two kinds of life cycles: (1) holocyclic and (2) anholocylic
(Agarwala, 2007). In the holocyclic life cycle, M. persicae overwinters as eggs on its primary
host, mainly peach and other related trees. In spring or summer the winged mother migrates
from the overwintering host as alate emigrants to secondary hosts and multiplies into
apterous viviparous and alate viviparous forms (Moran, 1992). Wingless viviparous females
reproduce via parthenogenesis and tremendous populations can result in a very short period
of time. Later in the year when it's time to overwinter, some apterous viviparae develop into
apterous oviparae and alate viviparous into alate males. Sexual reproduction takes place and
mated females return to the primary hosts (e.g., peaches) to lay fertilized eggs (Stern, 1995).
The following spring, the females (stem mother) hatch from the eggs and begin the
parthenogenetic generation. In the case of L. erysimi, in some areas where the winters are not
severe there is no overwintering of eggs and parthenogenetic reproduction continues
throughout the year (Conrad, 2009). Wingless males and holocyclic reproduction of L.
erysimi had however been reported in Japan with eggs laid along the veins of leaves (Kawada
and Murai, 1979).
2.7 MANAGEMENT OF APHIDS ON CANOLA 2.7.1 CULTURAL CONTROL
Cultural controls are one of the oldest methods that have been used to control pest
populations. Cultural control refers to that wide range of management options, which may be
manipulated by growers to achieve their crop production goals (Kennedy et al., 1975). On
the other hand, it is the deliberate alteration of the farming system, either the cropping system
itself or some specific farming practices, to keep pest populations under control (Ashdown,
1977). With the advancement of synthetic pesticides however these traditional control
measures were rapidly ignored by growers and researchers (Hill, 1989).
Various scientists worked on cultural control of insect pests and concluded that
narrow row spacing would tend to increase shoot borer damage in sugarcane (Avasthy and
Varma, 1979). Similarly, Katanyukul et al. (1979) reported that the percentage of damaged
tillers by the gall midge, Orseolia oryzae (Wood-Mason), is higher in rice fields planted at
10
high densities. Kushwaha and Sharma (1981) determined that plant spacing had more
influence on pest incidence and was inversely proportional to the incidence. Bhutto et al.
(1997) observed that stem borer, Scirpophaga incertulas (Walker), damage was significantly
influenced by spacing of rice seedlings densities. Malik et al. (2003) investigated the effect
of row spacing of onion plants on thrips (Thrips spp.) populations, an inverse relation was
observed between increased line spacing and thrips densities.
2.7.2 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
Biological control is a technique in which, insect pest populations are suppressed by
living organisms, the pest’s natural enemies, making them less damaging than they would
otherwise be in the absence of these natural enemies. Natural enemies used to suppress pest
populations, are predators, parasites, parasitoids, and pathogens. Biological control has been
applied against a variety of pests, including vertebrates, plant pathogens, weeds, and insects
(DeBach, 1964).
Biological control is a key component, though often under appreciated, in agriculture
pest management. It may take many years to succeed and it can be safest cheapest, and most
effective approach to longterm management of a pest. The first step in biological control of
aphids and other pests is to evaluate the effectiveness of natural enemies by identifying those
species that have high potential for exploitation (Irshad, 2001).
Fortunately, aphids are attacked by several natural enemies including predators,
parasitoids and pathogens (Bugg, et al., 2008). Some natural enemies reside in the field and
are present when founding aphids colonize host plants. Others can disperse rapidly and
colonize shortly after aphids become established. These natural enemies can reduce the
aphids rate of population increase.
Irshad (2001) reported that 30 different kinds of parasitoids and 42 predators which
feed on aphids are present in Pakistan. He further reported that Diaretiella rapae, Aphidius
columani and Aphidius matricariae are important parasitoids, and coccinellids, chrysopids
and syrphid flies are important predators, which are present in Pakistan.
2.7.3 CHEMICAL CONTROL
Chemical control is the most efficient and quickest method for the control of aphids.
Insecticides belong to different groups like organochlorines (Bakhetia et al., 1986),
organophosphates (Mustafa, 1982) and pyrethriods (Parsad, 1992) have been used to control
11
aphids on brassicas, but many are associated with undesirable traits such as failure in
controlling aphids, persistence and deposition of oil, and contributing to the development of
insecticide resistance. Different scientists worked on chemical control of aphids. Liu et al.
(2001) studied the efficacies of primicarb, immidacloprid, thiomethaxam and
lamdacyhalothrin against turnip aphids on cabbage. Results showed that Primicarb and lamda
cyhalothrin were most effective followed by Imidacloprid. Similarly, Sinha et al. (2001)
assessed the relative toxicity of insecticides against aphids on brassicas and found that
phosphomidon was the most effective followed by dimethoate, linden, and chlorpyriphos.
Mustafa (2004) conducted field experiments to determine the efficacy of insecticides against
aphids on brassicas. Results indicated that all treatments were equal within 7 days of
application. After 72 hour Actara® (thiomethoxam) and Mospilon® (acetamiprid) showed
highest mortality (95.86% and 95.06% respectively), which were at par with each other but
significantly lower than Polo® (diafenthuron). Rashid (2005) tested the D-C- Tron® at rate of
741 ml/hectare and 1135 mi/hectare, acetamiprid 198g, thiomethaxam 60 g, imidacloprid 370
ml and carbosulfan 741 ml/ha for the control of aphids on brassica and reported that highest
population suppression was found with applications of carbosulfan, while the lowest
population suppression was found with D-C- Tron® at 741 ml/ha.
2.7.4 DEVELOPMENT OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
Complete dependence on synthetic pesticides for pest management is unlikely for
long-term canola production due to high risk of resistance, residues, and negative effects on
natural enemies (Macdonald et al., 1999). Undesirable effects and difficulties in controlling
pests with broadspectrum pesticides demand the development of integrated pest management
strategies, in which cultural control, crop resistance, mechanical control and biological
control are important components. Chemical control in an IPM system focuses on the use of
reduced-risk pesticides. The availability of such techniques will not only help manage pests,
it will also reduce exposure to pesticides. Host plant resistance is one of the important
components needed to establish an IPM system (Van Emden, 1990, Panda and Khush, 1995).
Host plant resistance to insects comes in three different forms, antixenosis, antibiosis, and
tolerance (Painter, 1958). Antixenosis is the inability of an insect pest to find or feed on a
suitable plant. Antibiosis reduces the ability of pest to survive and reproduce on suitable host
plants. Tolerance is defined as the ability of plants to produce high yields despite damage
12
from insect feeding (Ellis and Farrell 1995; Palaniswamy, 1996). Both antixenosis and
tolerance are mechanisms of resistance in cruciferous plants (e.g., Sinapis alba, Brassica
juncea and B. napus) to the flea beetle, Phyllotreta striolata (Palaniswamy, 1996).
Significant resistance to the flea beetle was achieved through introgressing resistance genes
from wild relatives of Brassicae into B. napus (unpubl. data, cited in Palaniswamy, 1996).
Biological control is also an important component of IPM strategies for canola. The role of
biocontrol agents has been rarely considered in practical pest management decisions.
Parasitoids and predators (e.g. ladybird beetle, lacewings, and hover flies) are reliable
biocontrol agents for aphids in spring when low to moderate populations of aphids are
present in the field (Berlandier, 2004). The use of pesticides is also an integral component of
pest management for canola, as pests on seedlings can rapidly increase their populations
within a short period of time. (Micic, 2005b). Various kinds of insecticides are available for
aphid control on canola, but they differ in selectivity and residual effect. Thus, the
application of more selective pesticides is important for conservation, enhancement and
integration of natural enemies in pest management. Decisions to apply chemicals should be
made on the basis of regular crop sampling (monitoring) for the occurrence of both insect
pests and their associated natural enemies. Economic thresholds need to be defined and used
for the pest of concern to determine whether chemical control is necessary or not (Umina and
Hoffmann, 1999; Robinson and Hoffmann, 2000). In other words, pesticides should be used
as part of an IPM program but not as the sole method of pest control.
13
Chapter 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 POPULATION DISTRIBUTIONS OF APHIDS AND THEIR NATURAL ENEMIES ON CANOLA IN PUNJAB
A thorough survey was conducted to determine population trends and species
compositions of aphids and their natural enemies on the canola crop in Punjab, Pakistan.
Different canola growing areas of Punjab i.e. Faisalabad, Bahawalpur, Khanpur and D.G.
Khan were selected for this study. Population data were recorded from canola fields
irrespective of variety grown at two weeks intervals during 2008 and 2009. Data collection
was started when aphids first appeared and continued until crop maturity. This was eight
weeks in duration. To estimate population size, aphids on the top 10 cm inflorescence of a
canola plant were counted. Five samples were taken per plot with three replicates. Aphid
species were identified in the field using a hand lens. The data were subjected to ANOVA
technique to determine whether any variation in aphid populations and their associated
natural enemies (green lace wing, coccinellids and syrphid fly) exists in canola growing areas
and observation weeks of the months. For significant results, means of population for aphids
and their associated natural enemies were compared by LSD test. Mstat-C Package was used
for all these statistical analysis (Steel et al., 1990).
3.2 EFFECT OF CANOLA CULTIVARS WITH VARYING LEVELS OF RESISTANCE TO APHID UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING coNDITIONS (SYNTHETIC FERTILIZERS AND FARMYARD MANURE APLLICATION)
This experiment was conducted in experimental field plots at the University of
Agriculture Faisalabad with three treatments: (1) synthetic fertilizers, (2) farmyard manure,
and (3) controls which received no inputs. Each treatment was replicated three times with 2.5
x 5 m plot size. In treatment 1, the recommended dose of fertilizers i.e. Nitrogen,
Phosphorous and Potash were applied at the rate of 32, 23 and 25 kg per acre, respectively
(Phosphorous and Potash were applied at time of sowing while Nitrogen was applied in two
splits), while in the second plot (treatment) farmyard manure (20 t ha–1) was applied once
before planting. The third treatment was untreated control. The seeds of 11 canola (Brassica
napus L.) genotypes (treatments), ‘Dunkled’, ‘Rainbow’, ‘Legend’, ‘AC-Excel’, ‘Bulbul 98’,
14
‘Punjab sarsoon’, ‘Cyclone’ , ‘Oscar’, ‘Shiralee’, ‘Pakola’ and ‘Hyola-401’ obtained from
Ayub Agriculture Research Institute, Faisalabad were sown with plant to plant distance of 10
cm and row to row distance of 45 cm in each treatment in rows by hand drill on 12th October
of 2009 and 2010.
Two cultural practices, weeding (twice) and irrigation three times during the whole
cropping season, were performed uniformly in all the plots but no aphid management
practices were carried out. To determine the degree of resistance to pest aphids, observations
started at the seedling stage of the crop and repeated every 7 days until crop maturity. Five
randomly selected plants per plot were inspected and winged and apterous aphids as well as
their natural enemies (Green lacewing, Ladybird beetle, and Syrphid fly) were counted. The
identification of aphids was carried out by using a key described by Liu and Sparks (2001).
The number of aphids species and their natural enemies were compared among treatments by
factorial (two-way) analysis of variance (ANOVA) by using Mstat-C Package.
3.3 BIOCHEMICAL PLANT CHARACTERS OF SELECTED CANOLA GENOTYPES AND THEIR CORRELATION WITH APHID POPULATION
3.3.1 BIOCHEMICAL PLANT FACTOR It is assumed that conventionally fertilized crop plants have higher levels of free
protein amino acids in foliage due to nitrogen fertilization, which has been shown to trigger
high infestations of aphids (Staley et al., 2009). To determine the variation in chemical
composition of plants grown under three sets of conditions i.e. organic treatment,
conventional treatment and controls, a set of chemical analysis were performed. The
following biochemical factors were studied: nitrogen, crude protein, lipid contents, crude
fiber, phosphorous, potassium and sodium.
3.3.1.1 Nitrogen
From each sample, 0.5 g of shoot powder was taken to determine the nitrogen
percentage by the Kjeldahl Method. It was calculated by the formula presented below
(Winkleman et. al., 1986).
Nitrogen (%) = 100 grams sample ofweight
blank]for titrant of ml -samplefor Titrant of [ml x 14.007 x acid of N
15
3.3.1.2 Crude Protein
The crude protein was calculated by the formula followed by Winkleman et al.,
(1986) given as:
Crude Protein (%) = Nitrogen % × 6.25
3.3.1.3 Lipid content
Two grams of the bulk sample were placed in a plugged thimble. Lipid samples were
extracted with ether on Soxhlet extraction apparatus, for ten hours. The ether extract was
dried and lipids were calculated as (A.O.A.C., 1975):
Lipids (%) = 100 sample ofweight
extractether ofweight
3.3.1.4 Crude Fiber
The small sample left behind after lipid extraction was dried, weighed and digested
with 1.25 % H2SO4 on a crude fiber extraction apparatus. The digested material was filtered,
re-digested with 0.1 N NaOH and re-filtered. The materials left on the filter paper were air-
dried and then ignited in a muffle furnace for 30 minutes. After cooling for one hour in a
desiccator, the ignited material was weighed. The loss in weight after ignition was measured
and the crude fiber was calculated by using the following formula (A.O.A.C., 1975).
Crude fiber (%) = 100 sample theofweight
ignitionon in weight loss
3.3.1.5 Sample Digestion for Macro Nutrients
One gram of material from each sample was weighed to determine the macronutrients
and digested in 10 ml concentrated nitric acid (HNO3).An equal quantity of 72% perchloric
acid (HCLO4) was added. The volume was then reduced to 3 ml by heating evaporation.
When the sample became colorless, it was placed on ice to lower the temperature and then
transferred to a 500 ml volumetric flask. The volume was increased to 100 ml by adding
distilled water. The samples were filtered and stored in falcon tubes at room temperature in
dark conditions for further analysis of phosphorous, sodium and potassium.
3.3.1.6 Phosphorus
Phosphorus concentration was determined by using the digested materials from the
previous section (3.3.1.5) samples following methods 56 and 61 of the Agriculture Handbook
16
No.60. The analysis was conducted on a Spectro-photometer AnA-720 W Tokyo,
Photoelectric co. Ltd. Japan using 470 mm wavelengths as the characteristic band.
3.3.1.7 Potassium and Sodium
These were determined using the digested materials with the help of Methods 55a,
58a and 57 a (Richard, 1954). The analysis was conducted on a Flame Photometer (Jenway
Ltd. Felsted CM6 3LB, DUNMOW ESSEX England).
3.3.2 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BIOCHEMICAL PLANT CHARACTERS
The data regarding the nitrogen, crude protein, lipid, crude fiber, phosphorous,
potassium and sodium contents of the inflorescence of canola were subjected to ANOVA
techniques under two factors factorial (two-way) analysis to determine whether the effects of
farming systems and canola genotypes, alone or in all possible interaction, on nutrients
accumulation in inflorescence are significant or not?. The treatments or their interactions
which had significant effects on nutrient accumulation were compared by LSD test.
The data regarding the nitrogen, crude protein, lipid, crude fiber, phosphorous,
potassium and sodium contents of the inflorescence of canola were subjected to correlation
and regression analysis to determine the type and nature of correlation between biochemical
plant characters and aphids’ population as well as the role of each biochemical plant
character in the population variation of aphids’ species in three different farming systems
(Fertilizer application, Farmyard manure application and control application).
3.4 DETERMINATION OF THE ROLE OF WEATHER FACTORS ON POPULATION FLUCTUATIONS OF APHIDS
3.4.1 METEOROLOGICAL DATA
Daily weather data (i.e., temperature, relative humidity and rainfall) were taken from
the Department of Crop Physiology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad to determine the
impact of climatic factors on aphid populations. Effects of different abiotic factors on aphid
populations were determined by working out the correlation between temperature, rainfall,
relative humidity and aphid populations growth (Steel et al., 1990) by using Mstat-C
package. Data regarding abiotic factors and aphid population were subjected to correlation
and multivariate stepwise regression analysis to determine the type and nature of correlation
between abiotic factors and aphids’ population as well as the role of each abiotic factor in the
population variation of aphids’ species.
17
3.5 STUDIES ON THE BIOLOGY OF APHIDS UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEMS (SYNTHETIC FERTILIZERS AND FARMYARD MANURE APLLICATION)
A two year study was conducted to determine the impact of organic and conventional
farming on aphids’ biology. The experiment was laid out in split plot design in the field with
five replicates in each treatment. There were two treatments, organically grown canola and
conventionally grown canola. Aphids (B. brassicae, M. persicae, L. erysim) species were
collected from the canola field, and reared on caged plants in fields separately up to two
generations. The experiment was done on the farm area of University of Agriculture
Faisalabad. Adult aphids were placed on underside of plant leaves with a no.2 camel hair
brush and confined in a leaf cage to lay nymphs. Aphids were observed regularly. Five clip
cages were used for each treatment with five replications. When adults produced nymphs, all
nymphs and adults were removed except for a single nymph left in cage. The nymph in the
cage was observed regularly till its death, and data on total nymphal period from birth to final
molt was recorded. Nymph was monitored daily till maturity, no. of nymph produced by
these adults were recorded and removed from the cages. Adults’ longevity, nymphal period,
reproductive period and post reproductive period were also recorded during the study
(Srinivasan et al., 2008). The data so recorded were subjected to ANOVA analysis to
determine whether the effects of farming systems on adults’ longevity, nymphal period,
reproductive period and post reproductive period are significant or not? Incase of significant
effects of the treatments (two farming systems), their means were compared by Tukey’s HSD
test.
3.6 DETERMINATION OF YIELD LOSSES, CAUSED BY APHIDS IN CANOLA UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEMS (SYNTHETIC FERTILIZERS AND FARMYARD MANURE APPLICATION)
The study was carried out in the farm area at the University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad to determine yield losses caused by aphids in canola crops grown under three
farming systems (organic, inorganic and no-treatment farming systems). Seeds were sown
with a hand drill in a plot having three rows, with row to row distance 0.5 m and plot to plot
1.5 m. After germination, cultural practices were performed uniformly in all plots through
out the growing season. Aphids were allowed to develop on two rows, while one row was
18
kept free from aphids by spraying Advantage® (carbosulfan) (FMC Limited, Pakistan) at the
labeled rate of 500 ml per acre in each treatment. During the application of insecticides, drift
to aphid infested rows was minimized by maintaining a 3m distance between treated and non
treated rows. There were negligible aphid populations on treated rows. Plants were inspected
weekly for aphid population in all plots. At the maturity, the affected plant characters like,
plant height, number of branches, number of pods per plant, number of seeds/pods, 1000 seed
weight and yield/plot were recorded. Yield data were taken from each treatment plot by
harvesting five ramdomly selected plants from each row in the plot. The yield of untreated
plot was compared with the yield of treated plot and % loss was calculated by the using the
following formulae:
(I) Loss in yield = Yield of Treated plot Yield of Untreated plot
(II) % loss in Yield = (Yield loss/ Treated plot yield) × 100
Losses in other plant characters were also determined using the same formula. These
formulae were employed by Jarvie and Shanahan (2009) to determine losses in yield in
sprayed and unsprayed plots of soybean. Data regarding yield and its components were
analyzed using analysis of variance technique to determine the effects of farming system on
the yiled and its components. Differences in means for yield and all the yield components
were calculated by Tukey’s HSD test at 0.05 level of significance.
3.7 EFFICACY OF SELECTIVE INSECTICIDES
This field study was carried out to determine the effects of different insecticides for
the control of aphid populations on canola crop. All insecticides were applied as foliar
applications. Calibration was done before the spray for measuring the quantity of water. The
crop was sprayed with a power knapsack sprayer. There were six treatments with three
replicates under RCBD. The treatments were apllied by using knapsack sprayer.The data
were recorded before spray and 24, 48, 72 and 168 hrs after treatment. Data were compiled
and subjected to statistical analysis.
(Population recorded before spray- Population recorded after spray) % Reduction = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------× 100
Population recorded before spray
19
Following insecticides were sprayed against aphids on canola under field conditions.
INSECTICIDES DOSE OF INSECTICIDE
Trade Name Common Name Dose/ 100 liter of water
aAdvantage® 20 EC Carbosulfan 500ml/acre aMospilon® 20 SP Acetamiprid 125g/acre bImidacloprid 200 SL Imidacloprid 250ml/acre bPyramids Nitenpyram 200ml/acre aCuracron 500 EC Profenofos 500ml/acre
a conventional insecticides b Reduced-risk insecticides
3.8 EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT CONTROL METHODS IN VARIOUS COMBINATIONS TO DETERMINE THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND ECONOMICAL METHOD AGAINST APHIDS FOR RECOMMENDATION TO FARMERS
These experiments were conducted on research area of Department of Entomology,
University of Agriculture, Faisalabad in a Randomized complete Block Design. The canola
crop was sown with hand drill in twelve plots approximately 0.5 kilometer apart from each
other. Two treatments, involving the application of organic (FYM application) inorganic
(Synthetic fertilizer application) farming systems, were completely randomized in twelve
plots. Treatments combinations including: T1, Blank Water Spray; T2, coccinellid; T3, Green
lacewing; T4, coccinellid + green lacewing; T5, Blank water spray + green lacewing +
coccinellid; T6, control, were then completely randomized each of the organically and
inorganically treated plots. In each plot, a RxR distance of 45 cm and PxP distance of 10 cm
was maintained. The experiment was repeated in the same canola growing season at three
different research farms under the control of the Deaprtment of Agri. Entomology,
Agronomy and Plant Breeding and Genetics. The eggs of green lacewing were obtained from
the Department of Entomology, University of Agriculture Faisalabad. Twenty five thousand
(25000) eggs of green lacewing on cards (each card containing approximately 1000 eggs)
were released in plots of respective treatment. The two thousand (2000) 2nd instar larvae of
coccinellid were collected from the canola field, starved for one day and then released into
the plots of respective treatment. Water spray was done whenever the aphid population
20
crossed the ETL limit (10-12 aphids per plant). During the studies, six sprays of water were
applied by power operated sprayer. Three repeated releases of C. carnea and coccinellids
were made during these studies irrespective of the aphid population. The additional
treatments were applied in their respective plots. To record observations, five random spots
were selected. From each spot five plants were selected. The aphid population was recorded
24, 48, 72 and 168 hrs after the application of treatments. Yield was recorded at the end of
the season. The data regarding the population reduction and yield of canola in each farming
system were subjected to an ANOVA and means of significant treatments were compared by
Tuket HSD test.
21
Chapter 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
(SECTION-I) 4.1 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF APHIDS AND THEIR
NATURAL ENEMIES ON CANOLA IN PUNJAB, PAKISTAN
The survey study was conducted in four different localities of Punjab at two week
intervals during 2008 and 2009. Samples were collected from canola field irrespective of
variety grown. Four different areas of Punjab (Faisalabad, Bahawalpur, Khanpur and D.G.
Khan) were selected for survey with following objectives.
1. To study population trends and species composition of canola aphids in different
areas of Punjab.
2. To investigate the natural enemies feeding on canola aphids in areas mentioned
above.
4.1.1 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF APHIDS ON CANOLA IN PUNJAB, PAKISTAN
4.1.1.1 Population distribution of B. brassicae on canola crop at various intervals of observation in
different Districts of Punjab during 2008 and 2009
The population distribution of cabbage aphid (B. brassicae) on canola during 2008
and 2009 at various localities in Punjab is presented in fig. 1.1 and 1.2, respectively. As
evident from table, during 2008, the highest population of B. brassicae was observed at
Bahawalpur (83.5 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence) irrespective of dates which was followed
by that recorded in Khanpur (66.4 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence), while Faisalabad showed
the lowest population of B. brassicae (34.6 per 10cm inflorescence). In the case of different
dates of observations, highest aphid infestation was recorded at the end of February (171.3
aphids per 10 cm inflorescence). It was noted that aphid population appeared on 2nd two
week period of January, increases gradually and reach maximum at the end of February and
beginning of March then it showed decline. While in combination of different dates of
observations and different localities, it was observed that the highest aphid density was
recorded at Bahawalpur during 2nd two week peroid of February (171 aphids per 10 cm
inflorescence), followed by Khanpur during 1st two week peroid of March (152 aphids per 10
22
cm of inflorescence) and D. G. Khan during 2nd two week peroid of February with aphid
population of 123.9 per 10 cm inflorescence. During the 2nd year (2009) of study same results
were obtained, maximum aphid population appeared in Bahawalpur (86.4 per 10 cm
inflorescence) followed by the khanpur (70 per 10 cm inflorescence) and D.G. Khan(56.3 per
10 cm inflorescence) irrespective of dates of observations. While during the different dates of
observations, the maximum aphids population was recoded at the end of February and
minimum population was recorded in mid January. In case of combination of dates of
observation and different localities, the results revealed that highest aphids density appeared
in the Bahawalpur (177 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence) during 2nd two week period of
February while less aphids appeared in Faisalabad (94 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence).
During 2nd year of study, Faisalabad again showed the minimum population on all dates of
observations (1-94 per 10 cm inflorescence). During 2009, the average aphid’s population on
different localities was higher than the previous year.
23
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
15/1/2008 30/1/2008 15/2/2008 1/3/2008 16/3/2008
Date
Cabbage Aphid
D.G Khan Bhawalpur Khanpur Faisalabad
Fig.1.1 Population distribution of B. brassicae (Means±SE) on canola crop in
various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2008. (Bars represent mean values and error bar denotes standard error)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
15/1/2009 30/1/2009 15/2/2009 1/3/2009 16/3/2009
Date
Cabbage Aphid
D.G Khan Bhawalpur Khanpur Faisalabad
Fig.1.2 Population distribution of B. brassicae (Means±SE) on canola crop in
various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2009. (Bars represent mean values and error bar denotes standard error)
24
4.1.1.2 Population distribution of M. persicae on canola at various intervals of observation in different Districts of Punjab during 2008 and 2009
The data pertaining to population distribution of M. persicae on canola during 2008
and 2009 in Punjab are presented in fig. 1.3 and 1.4. The results regarding the population
distribution on different dates of observation revealed that highest population of M. persicae
was observed on the 2nd two week period of March (14.5 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence)
while smallest aphid population was recorded during 1st two week period of January (0.10
aphids10 inflorescence). Data regarding the population of aphids in different localities of
Punjab showed that Faisalabad had highest number of M. persicae (29.2 per 10cm
inflorescence), khanpur had 2nd highest number of aphids (4.5 aphids per 10 cm
inflorescence). In contrast, in D. G. Khan and Bahawalpur, no M. persicae appeared through
out the observation period. In case of combination of dates of observation and localities, the
highest aphid numbers (53.7 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence) were observed in Faisalabad
followed by Khanpur (11.6 aphids per 10 inflorescence) during 1st two week period of
March. During the 2nd year of study, same trend was observed, Faisalabad showed highest
density during whole period of experimentation. Aphid population started from 2nd week of
January, increased gradually and reached maximum in 2nd week of March.
25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
15/1/2008 30/1/2008 15/2/2008 1/3/2008 16/3/2008
Date
Green Peach Aphid
D.G Khan Bhawalpur Khanpur Faisalabad
Fig.1.3 Population distribution of M. persicae (Means±SE) on canola crop in various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2008. (Bars represent mean values and error bar denotes standard error)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
15/1/2009 30/1/2009 15/2/2009 1/3/2009 16/3/2009
Date
Green Peach Aphid
D.G Khan Bhawalpur Khanpur Faisalabad
Fig.1.4 Population distribution of M. persicae (Means±SE) on canola crop in
various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2009. (Bars represent mean values and error bar denotes standard error)
26
4.1.1.3 Population distribution of L. erysimi on canola crop at various intervals of observation in different Districts of Punjab during 2008 and 2009
Mean comparison of data regarding the population of L. erysimi in various districts of
Punjab during 2008 and 2009 is given in fig. 1.5 and 1.6. The results from 2008 revealed
significant differences among the dates of observation. There was significant variation in
aphid population among the various locations sampled in Punjab. The results showed that
highest population was recorded in Bahawalpur (24.8 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence)
followed by Khanpur (16.2 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence). Faisalabad and showed
minimum population of aphids (9.5 per 10 cm inflorescence). The data regarding the dates of
observation revealed that the highest population recorded was 29.8 aphids per 10 cm
inflorescence on March 15 and the 2nd highest in March 1st two week period (25.9 aphids per
10 cm inflorescence). It was observed that aphid population started on 2nd two week period of
January with 5.2 per 10 cm per inflorescence, it increase gradually and reach maximum in 1st
two week period of March (29.8 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence). In combination of dates of
observation and visited localities results showed that the highest population was observed at
Bahawalpur on March 1st and March 15 with aphid population of 41.3 and 41.2 aphids per
10 cm, respectively and minimum population was reported in 1st two week period of January
all four studied districts with no aphids. It was noted that aphids population started on
January 30 and increased up to March 15. In 2009, aphid population started on January 15
with almost equal population of 0.5, 0.6, 0.4 and 0.7 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence in
D.G.Khan, Bahawalpur, Khanpur and Faisalabad, respectively population increases gradually
and reached in peak on 1st two week period of March in Bahawalpur.
27
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15/1/2008 30/1/2008 15/2/2008 1/3/2008 16/3/2008
Date
Turnip Aphid
D.G Khan Bhawalpur Khanpur Faisalabad
Fig.1.5 Population distribution of L. erysimi (Means±SE) on canola crop in
various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2008. (Bars represent mean values and error bar denotes standard error)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
15/1/2009 30/1/2009 15/2/2009 1/3/2009 16/3/2009
Date
Turnip Aphid
D.G Khan Bhawalpur Khanpur Faisalabad
Fig.1.6 Population distribution of L. erysimi (Means±SE) on canola crop in
various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2009. (Bars represent mean values and error bar denotes standard error)
28
4.1.2 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL ENEMIES ON CANOLA IN PUNJAB, PAKISTAN
Natural enemies i.e. Ladybird beetle, Green lacewing and Syrphid fly population was
recorded in various districts of Punjab during 2008 and 2009.
4.1.2.1 Population fluctuation of Ladybird beetle during 2008 and 2009 in various Districts of Punjab and during different dates of observation
Data regarding the population fluctuation of ladybird beetle is presented in fig. 1.7
and 1.8 for 2008 and 2009 respectively. The results revealed that significant variation were
found in the data regarding the population of ladybird beetle among the various districts of
Punjab during 2008. The highest population of ladybird beetle was recorded in Faisalabad
(1.07 per plant) followed by Bahawalpur and D.G.Khan with almost equal ladybird beetle
population (0.81 and 0.83), respectively Khanpur had fewer ladybird beetles (0.58 per plant).
The ladybird beetle population began growing during 1st two week period of January and
reached at maximum level on 1st two week period of March. The combination of dates of
observation and sampled localities, showed that the ladybird beetle population was highest in
Faisalabad on March 15 (2.06 aphids per plant followed by Bahawalpur and D.G.Khan on
the same date of observation. The ladybird beetle population was lowest in Khanpur (0.333
aphids per 10 cm per plant) on 1st two week period of January followed by D.G.Khan which
has almost equal population. During 2nd year of studies similar results were obtained.
29
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
15/1/2008 30/1/2008 15/2/2008 1/3/2008 16/3/2008
Date
Lad
y Bird Bee
tle
D.G Khan Bhawalpur Khanpur Faisalabad
Fig.1.7 Population distribution of Ladybird beetle (Means±SE) on canola crop in
various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2008. (Bars represent mean values and error bar denotes standard error)
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
15/1/2009 30/1/2009 15/2/2009 1/3/2009 16/3/2009
Date
Lad
y Bird Beetle
D.G Khan Bhawalpur Khanpur Faisalabad
Fig.1.8 Population distribution of Ladybird beetle (Means±SE) on canola crop in
various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2009. (Bars represent mean values and error bar denotes standard error)
30
4.1.2.2 Population fluctuation of Green lacewing during 2008 and 2009 in various Districts of Punjab and during different dates of observation
The mean comparison of the population of green lacewing is given in fig. 1.9 and
1.10. During 2008, both localities had significant effect on the population fluctuation of
green lacewing. Data showed that the maximum population of green lacewing was found in
Faisalabad (0.7 and 0.9 predators per plant for both locations) followed by all of other
districts. In the case of dates of observation, the highest population was recorded on March
15 followed February 30 and February 15 with predator population of 0.9, 0.7, and 0.6 per
plant, respectively. During 2nd year of study slightly higher predator population (0.4-1.2
predators per plant) was observed. The highest population was again found in Faisalabad
(0.77 per plant). The population fluctuation was similar to the previous year on all dates of
observation and districts of Punjab. In case of combinations of dates of observation and
localities, the Faisalabad area received the highest numbers of predators (1.6 per plant) on the
end of February followed by that recorded in Bahawalpur on same date.
31
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
15/1/2008 30/1/2008 15/2/2008 1/3/2008 16/3/2008
Date
Green Lacew
ing
D.G Khan Bhawalpur Khanpur Faisalabad
Fig.1.9 Population distribution of Green lacewing (Means±SE) on canola crop in
various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2008. (Bars represent mean values and error bar denotes standard error)
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
15/1/2009 30/1/2009 15/2/2009 1/3/2009 16/3/2009
Date
Green Lacew
ing
D.G Khan Bhawalpur Khanpur Faisalabad
Fig.1.10 Population distribution of Green Lacewing (Means±SE) on canola crop in
various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2009. (Bars represent mean values and error bar denotes standard error)
32
4.1.2.3 Population fluctuation of syrphid flies during 2008 and 2009 in various districts of Punjab and during different dates of observation
Data on the population fluctuation of syrphid fly in various districts of Punjab during
2008 and 2009 are presented in fig. 1.11 and 1.12, respectively. The results regarding the
population of syrphid fly revealed significant differences among different dates of
observations and different districts of Punjab in 2008. In the case of dates of observation the
highest population was observed on March 1st two week period (1.1 flies per plant) and on
February during 2nd two week period (1.2 flies per plant). The smallest population appeared
on 1st two week period of January (0.2 flies per plant). While results regarding various
districts of Punjab showed that syrphid fly population was almost equal in all districts of
Punjab. In combined effect of localities and dates, the highest syrphid fly population was
observed in Faisalabad (1.4 flies per plant) on 2nd two week period of February followed by
population that was recorded in D.G.Khan locality (1.3 flies per plant). In 2009 there was
lower population of syrphid fly in few areas while all other results were same as previous
year.
33
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
15/1/2008 30/1/2008 15/2/2008 1/3/2008 16/3/2008
Date
Syrphid Fly
D.G Khan Bhawalpur Khanpur Faisalabad
Fig.1.11 Population distribution of Syrphid Fly (Means±SE) on canola crop in
various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2008. (Bars represent mean values and error bar denotes standard error)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
15/1/2009 30/1/2009 15/2/2009 1/3/2009 16/3/2009
Date
Syrphid Fly
D.G Khan Bhawalpur Khanpur Faisalabad
Fig.1.12 Population distribution of Syrphid Fly (Means±SE) on canola crop in
various areas of Punjab, Pakistan during 2009. (Bars represent mean values and error bar denotes standard error)
34
4.1.3 DISCUSSION 4.1.3.1 Population distribution of aphid species (B. brassicae, M. persicae and L. erysimi)
on canola in various Districts of Punjab during 2008 and 2009
Aphids are serious pests of canola which causes severe damage to crops (Hashmi,
1994). Its incidence and severity has been found inconsistent during the crop season (Singh
and Laal, 1999). Different authors observed different times of initiation of aphid’s infestation
on the canola crop. Population studies of the pest are one of the important components of
pest management strategies. Little work has been reported on the population fluctuation of
aphids in the southern parts of Punjab province of Pakistan. The present study was conducted
to determine the population trends and species composition of aphids infesting canola in four
localities of Punjab, Pakistan during 2008 and 2009. It was observed that cabbage aphids (B.
brassicae) and mustard aphids (L. erysimi) were present in all four locations selected for
study, while green peach aphid (M. persicae) was observed only in two locations i.e.
Faisalabad and Khanpur. Aslam (2005) reported B. brassicae and L. erysimi as important
pests of canola in southern Punjab, Province of Pakistan. This means that these two species,
B. brassicae and L. erysimi were found in locations i.e. D.G. Khan and Bahawlpur. Similar
information has been reported by Marghub et al. (2009), who reported that two species of
aphid (B. brassicae, L. erysimi) were present in southern Punjab. The results of present
studies also revealed that the population of B. brassicae was higher in all four locations as
compared with other two species of aphids infesting canola. A population of B. brassicae
was found highest in Bahawalpur locality on March 1st during both years of studies. These
results are in confirmatory with those of Marghub et al (2009) who also reported the
maximum population of B. brassicae at Bahawalpur. M. persicae was only observed in
Faisalabad and Khanpur and was not found in D.G. Khan and Bahawalpur. The aphid species
L. erysimi was found in all four districts during both years of studies, it was highest in
Bahawalpur followed by Khanpur and D.G. Khan. Collectively Bahawalpur showed the
highest populations of all species of aphids except M. persicae which was greatest in
Faisalabad. So by comparing the aphid population among different locations Bahawalpur
showed maximum aphid population followed by Khanpur, D.G. Khan, and Faisalabad. From
the results on the basis of dates of observation it was noted that the highest populations
appeared on last week of February and 2nd week of March in all four districts studied.
35
Aphid’s population appeared in the 2nd week of January (approximately three months after
sowing) and increased gradually up to March 15 before declining. These are results in
conformity with Anwar and Shafique (1999), Aslam et al. 2002; Aslam et al. 2005 who
reported maximum population in 1st week of March during 1995 and 3rd week of February
during 1997.
4.1.3.2 Population densities of natural enemies (ladybird beetle, green lacewing and syrphid fly) attacking aphids on canola in various Districts of Punjab during 2008 and 2009
A number of natural enemies principally ladybird beetles, coccinella septempunctata
(L.) (coleoptera: coccinellidae), Syrphid flies, Episyrphus balteatus (Diptera: Syrphidae),
lacewings, C. carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) have been found feeding on
aphids (VanEmden et al., 1969). Most of them are general predators, roving freely among
green peach aphids. In some cases, the natural enemies are influenced by the host plant, crop
cultural practices and environmental conditions (Tamaki et al., 1981). Our results indicate
that the green lacewing population appeared on 1st two week period of January, it increased
gradually and reached maximum in 1st two week period of March when canola crop was
matured. Charlet et al. (2002) also documented very late appearance of green lacewing
abundantly in the season (Charlet et al. 2002). The adult hover flies feed on nectar and pollen
of the flowers, while the larvae feed on aphids in canola crop (Charlet et al., 2002). Our
results also revealed that the population of syrphid fly remained high recorded from February
to March. Irshad (2001) reported that C. septumpunctata is an important predator of M.
persicae, with a wide distribution in Pakistan. A survey was conducted regarding population
fluctuations of natural enemies of aphids in various districts of Punjab during 2008 and 2009.
The results revealed that a significant variation was found among different dates of
observation and localities in Punjab. The highest populations of all three natural enemies
were found in Faisalabad locality followed by that recorded in Khanpur while minimum
population of natural enemies was observed in the Bahawalpur locality. This may be due
variation in crop rotations of the selected locations. For instance, in Bahawalpur locality the
cotton is major crop which received maximum application of insecticides that may reduce the
natural enemies’ population; while, in Faisalabad multiple cropping is done which may
support the natural enemies. No literature was available for the confirmation or contradiction
of these results.
36
On the basis of dates of observations, the maximum population of natural enemies
was recorded on 2nd week of March and last week of February. Our findings are in
conformity with Nakata (1994), who studied the population fluctuation of aphids and their
natural enemies and concluded that population fluctuations of coccinellids (C.
septempunctata and H. axyridis) were closely related to the 1st population peak of M.
persicae.
Among the various natural enemies, a maximum population was recorded for
coccinellid followed by green lacewings and syrphid flies. These findings are similar to those
of Rafi et al. (2005), who reported C. septempuctata as the dominant predator species
feeding on M. persicae. C. septempunctata was first recorded during 4th week of February
with a mean number of 2.3 lady beetle/ plant. collectively, on the basis of dates of
observation and localities, predator density was maximum in Faisalabad district on March 15
and February 30 followed by Khanpur and D.G. Khan with same dates of observation. Elliot
et al. (1997) also reported the peak population of cereal aphid species and their associated
natural enemies, like C. carnea, Syrphus corollae and two parasitoids, Aphidius colemani and
D. rapae in mid March and early April.
37
SECTION-II
4.2 THE EFFECT OF CANOLA CULTIVARS WITH VARYING LEVELS OF RESISTANCE TO APHIDS UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEMS IN FIELD CONDITIONS (SYNTHETIC FERTILIZERS AND FARMYARD MANURE APLLICATION)
The experiment was conducted to determine the degree of resistance of canola
genotypes against aphids in the experimental fields of University of Agriculture Faisalabad,
in a randomized plot design with three treatments including fertilizers and farmyard manure
applications and untreated controls. The objective of the study was to identify the
comparatively resistant, comparatively moderate and comparatively susceptible genotypes. In
this experiment comparatively resistant, moderately resistant and susceptible genotypes were
screened out using organic and conventional systems of farming
4.2.1 EFFECT OF CANOLA CULTIVARS WITH VARYING LEVELS OF RESISTANCE TO APHIDS UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEM (SYNTHETIC FERTILIZERS AND FARMYARD MANURE APLLICATION)
4.2.1.1 Population of cabbage aphid B. brassicae on canola genotypes under different farming systems during 2009 and 2010
Data regarding the population of B. brassicae on canola genotypes for 2009 and 2010
are presented in Tables 2.1 and 2.2, respectively. The results revealed that the highest
population of cabbage aphid was observed on the canola genotypes ‘Shiralee’ and ‘Cyclone’
(16.2 and 15.9 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence, respectively) and the lowest population was
observed on ‘Bulbul-98’, ‘‘Hyola-401’ and ‘Rainbow’ (11.5, 11.6 and 11.9 aphids per 10 cm
inflorescence, respectively). All other canola genotypes studied were statistically equivalent.
In the case of different farming systems the highest population of cabbage aphids (19.46
aphids per 10 cm inflorescence) was observed in plots, where synthetic fertilizer was applied
followed by recorded in farmyard manure applications (13.7 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence)
and controls plot (7.8 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence). Data regarding the farming systems
and genotype interaction revealed that the genotypes ‘Cyclone’ and ‘Shiralee’ showed the
highest aphid population in synthetic fertilizer application treatment (26.6 and 26.5 aphids
per 10 cm inflorescence) followed by recorded in Ac-excel and Legend (20.5 and 19.3 aphids
per 10 cm inflorescence) respectively. The lowest aphids populations recorded were on
genotypes ‘Hyola-401’ and ‘Rainbow’ (13.8 and 14.4 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence,
38
respectively). In the case of farmyard manure application, all genotypes showed almost
similar aphids densities, but slightly higher populations were observed on the genotype
Legend (16.1 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence) and smallest population of cabbage aphid
under farmyard manure application was recorded on ‘Bulbul-98’ (12.2 aphids per 10 cm
inflorescence). In control treatments aphid populations in all genotypes were nearly
equivalent; however, population in control treatment was less than the fertilizer and farmyard
manure application. During 2nd year (2010) of the study similar population trend was noted,
highest populations were observed on canola grown with fertilizer applications followed by
recorded in canola crop grown under farmyard manure application and the control with
minimum populations.
39
Table 2.1 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of B. brassicae on various canola genotypes under different farming systems during 2009.
GENOTYPES FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD = 7.9) MEAN
(LSD = 3.9) FS1 FS2 FS3
Dunkled 18.9±3.9b 13.2±2.6 bcdef 8.4±1.9 def 13.6±3.0 ab
Rainbow 14.5±4.5 bcdef 13.0±2.1 bcdef 8.3±1.8 def 11.9±1.8 b
Legend 19.3±3.8 abc 16.1±3.1 bcd 7.6±1.6 ef 14.3±3.5 ab
AC Excel 20.5 ±6.6 ab 14.2±2.7 bcdef 7.7±1.5 ef 14.1±3.7 ab
Bulbul-98 14.8 ±3.3 bcde 12.2±2.2 cdef 7.6±1.5 ef 11.6±2.1 b
‘Punjab sarsoon’ 19.9 ±2.9 abc 12.9±2.2 bcdef 7.9±1.4 ef 13.6±3.5 ab
Cyclone 26.5 ±6.4 a 13.8±2.6 bcdef 7.3±1.4 ef 15.9±5.6 a
Oscar 20.3 ±3.5 ab 13.4± 2.3abcdef 8.2±1.9 ef 13.9±3.5 ab
‘Shiralee 26.5 ±6.08 a 14.4±2.7 bcdef 7.6±1.3 ef 16.2± 5.5 a
Pakola 18.8 ±3.4 abc 12.9± 2.5 bcdef 8.5±1.8def 13.4±3.0 ab
‘Hyola 401’ 13.8 ±2.4bcdef 14.3±2.6 bcdef 6.9±1.2 f 11.7±2.3 b
Mean
(LSD=1.5)
19.46±2.4 a 13.7±0.3 b 7.8±0.3 c
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
40
Table 2.2 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of B. brassicae on various canola genotypes under different farming systems during 2010
GENOTYPES FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD = 7.9) MEAN
(LSD = 3.9) FS1 FS2 FS3
Dunkled 21.1±3.8 abc 15.5±2.5 bcde 11.6±1.8def 16.8±2.7 ab
Rainbow 16.6±4.4 bcdef 15.2±2.0 bcde 11.5±1.7 de 14.5±1.5 b
Legend 21.5±3.7 abc 18.3±3.0 bcd 10.7±1.5 de 16.8±3.1 ab
AC Excel 22.7±6.4 ab 16.4±2.6 debcde 10.8±1.4de 16.6±3.4 ab
Bulbul-98 17.2±3.3 bcde 14.4±2.1 cde 10.8±1.4de 14.1±1.8 b
‘Punjab sarsoon’ 22.1±2.9 abc 15.1±2.1 bcde 11.1±1.3de 16.2±3.2 ab
Cyclone 28.7±6.4 a 16.1±2.5 bcde 10.5±1.3 de 18.4±5.4 a
Oscar 22.5±3.5 ab 15.5±2.2 bcde 11.3±1.8 de 16.5±3.2 ab
‘Shiralee 28.7±5.9 a 16.5±2.5 bcdef 10.7±1.2 de 18.7±5.2 a
Pakola 21.1±3.4 abc 15.1± 2.4 bcde 11.6±1.7bcde 15.9±2.7 ab
‘Hyola 401’ 16.0±2.4 bcde 16.5±2.5 bcde 10.1± 1.2e 14.2±2.0 b
Mean
(LSD=1.5)
21.6±2.4 a 15.8±0.5 b 10.9±0.2 c
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
41
4.2.1.1.1 Population of cabbage aphid (B. brassicae) on canola during different dates of observation under farming systems during 2009 and 2010 The results regarding the population of B. brassicae on canola during different
observation dates for 2009 and 2010 is presented in Tables 2.3 and 2.4. The results during 1st
year of study revealed that cabbage aphid appeared in the 1st week of February and its
population increased gradually over time. The highest populations of cabbage aphid were
observed on 2nd week of March (30.9 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence) followed by that
recorded during the last week of February and 2nd week of March, with the aphid’s
population peaking at (18.45 and 16.824 per 10 cm inflorescence, respectively). The results
regarding population of aphids and interaction of dates of observation and farming systems
showed that maximum population of cabbage aphids was recorded in the synthetic fertilizer
application treatment during 2nd week of March followed by that recorded on last week of
February (45.0 and 29.5 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence), respectively. In the case of
farmyard manure (organic farming) application and control treatment during the 2nd week of
March sample again showed highest aphids population range (18.45-29.0 aphids 10 cm
infloresence) followed by that recorded in 2nd week of March and last week of February
(18.45-22.5 aphids per 10 cm infloresence). During 2nd year of study slightly higher aphids
population was observed on the canola crop but it showed similar trends toward dates of
observations. The result indicated that 2nd week March again had highest population range in
all systems of farming (21.49-46.70 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence). The 2nd highest
population range was observed on last week of February (12.47-31.4).
42
Table 2.3 Mean comparison of date regarding the population of B. brassicae on canola during different dates of observation under farming systems during 2009
DATE OF
OBSERVATIONS
FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD = 5.3) MEAN
(LSD = 2.9) FS1 FS2 FS3
3 February 1.8±0.1 i 1.1±0.1 i 0.2±0.07 i 1.03±0.5 d
13 February 4.8±0.2 hi 2.5±0.09 i 1.7± 0.1 i 2.9±0.9 d
20 February 19.7±0.5 cd 10.5± 0.2 fg 4.8±0.2 hi 11.7±4.3 c
27 February 29.5±1.4 b 16.4±0.4 de 9.4±0.3 gh 18.5±5.9 b
8 March 45.2±4.5 a 29.1±0.6 b 18.6±0.4 cd 30.9±7.7 a
15 March 15.7±1.9 def 22.5±0.8 c 12.2±0.3efg 16.8±3.0 b
Mean
(LSD=1.5)
19.5±9.3 a 13.7±6.4 b 7.8±4.0 c
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
Table 2.4. Mean comparison of date regarding the population of B. brassicae on
canola during different dates of observation under farming systems during 2010
DATE OF
OBSERVATIONS
FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD = 5.3) MEAN
(LSD = 2.5) FS1 FS2 FS3
3 February 4.2±0.3 h 3.5±0.2 h 3.5±0.1 h 3.8±0.5 d
13 February 7.8±0.2 gh 5.4±0.3 h 5.2±0.3 h 6.1±1.2 d
20 February 21.9±0.6 cd 12.6±0.2 fg 8.0±0.2 gh 14.2±5.3 c
27 February 31.5±1.9 b 18.4±0.5 de 12.5±0.3 gh 20.8±8.4 b
8 March 46.7±7.4 a 30.5±0.6 b 21.5±0.3 cd 32.9±18.5 a
15 March 17.9±2.5 def 24.6±1.3 c 15.3±0.2efg 19.3±4.4 b
Mean
(LSD=1.5)
21.6±16.5 a 15.8±6.6 b 10.9±4.5 c
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
43
4.2.1.2 Population of green peach aphid (M. persicae) on canola genotypes under
different farming systems during 2009-2010
Data regarding the population of M. persicae on various canola genotypes under
different farming system during 2009 and 2010 are presented in Tables 2.5 and 2.6,
respectively. As is evident from the results green peach aphid populations were significantly
different under different farming systems. It was noted that population was the highest on
synthetic fertilizer (inorganic farming) application (29.4 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence)
followed by that recorded in farmyard manure application (organic farming) and control
(14.5 and 8.47 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence, respectively). The data regarding the
population of aphids on various genotypes showed that no variety was found free from
aphids, heavy infestation of aphids was observed on all tested varieties. All varieties showed
almost statistically similar population of aphids. In combination of canola genotypes and
farming systems, significant results were obtained. The variety ’Oscar’ found to be
susceptible with maximum population of aphids (40.27 per 10 cm inflorescence) under
synthetic fertilizer application and 2nd highest population in same treatment was found on
variety ‘Shiralee’ and ‘Ac exel’ with aphids population of 35.3 and 34.5 aphids per 10 cm
inflorescence. In case of farmyard manure application and control conditions, all genotypes
exhibited similar response. Populations of aphids were more in farmyard manure application
(organic farming) than control but in both treatments varietal response was same. In general,
canola varieties showed different responses to fertilizer applications while in farm
yardmanure applications and untreated controls responded similarly. In 2nd year of study
same results were obtained regarding population of aphids on genotypes under different
farming system.
44
Table 2.5 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of green peach aphid (M. persicae) on various canola genotypes under different farming conditions during 2009
GENOTYPES FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 12.3) MEAN
(LSD=6) FS1 FS2 FS3
Dunkled 32.3±10.9 abc 13.6±2.6 ef 8.8±1.8 f 18.2±7.1 a
‘Rainbow’ 22.2±5.8 cde 17.8±3.6 def 8.6±1.7 f 16.2±4.0 a
Legend 27.4±5.4 bcd 16.4±3.1 def 8.2±1.4 f 17.3±5.5 a
AC Excel 34.6±10 ab 14.9±2.7 ef 7.0 ± 1.4f 19.1±8.0 a
‘Bulbul-98’ 23.6±3.9 bcde 13.1±2.1 ef 8.9±1.9 f 15.2±4.3 a
‘Punjab sarsoon’ 27.3±5.9 bcd 13.8±2.0 ef 8.6±1.7 f 16.6±5.5 a
‘Cyclone’ 33.1±6.8 abc 13.2±2.2 ef 8.2±1.7 f 18.2±7.6 a
Oscar 40.3±11.9 a 14.0±2.0 ef 8.7±1.7 f 21.0±9.7 a
‘Shiralee’e 35.3±8.3 ab 14.9±2.1 ef 8.4±1.7 f 19.5±8.1 a
Pakola 23.6±3.9 bcde 14.6±2.7 ef 8.8±1.7 f 15.7±4.3 a
‘Hyola 401’ 24.3± bcde 13.8±2.5 ef 8.5±1.5 f 15.5±4.6 a
Mean
(LSD= 2.3)
29.5±3.4 a 14.6±0.8 b 8.5±0.2 c
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
45
Table 2.6 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of green peach aphid (M. persicae) on various canola genotypes under different farming conditions during 2010
GENOTYPES FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 12.3) MEAN
(LSD=6) FS1 FS2 FS3
Dunkled 15.0±10.9 abc 17.4±2.6 def 12.2±1.9 f 22.1±7.1 a
‘Rainbow’ 26.0±5.8 cde 21.7± 3.6 def 12.4±1.9 f 20.1±4.0 a
Legend 31.3±5.5 bcd 20.2±3.2 def 12.1±1.6 f 21.2±5.5 a
AC Excel 38.0±10 ab 18.7±2.7 ef 11.6±1.5 f 22.9±8.0 a
‘Bulbul-98’ 27.5±4.0 bcde 16.9±2.1 ef 12.7±2.0 f 19.0±4.3 a
‘Punjab sarsoon’ 31.2±5.9 bcd 17.7±2.1 ef 12.4±1.9 f 20.5±5.5 a
‘Cyclone’ 36.9±6.9 abc 17.1±2.3 def 12.1±1.9 ij 22.0±7.6 a
Oscar 44.2±12.0 a 17.8±2.3 ef 12.7±1.8 f 23.9±9.7 a
‘Shiralee’e 39.2±8.4 ab 18.7±2.8 ef 12.3±1.8 f 23.5±8.1 a
Pakola 27.5±5.5 bcde 18.5±2.6 ef 12.6±1.8 f 19.6±4.3 a
‘Hyola 401’ 28.1±4.0 bcde 17.7±2.4 ef 12.4±1.7 f 19.4±4.6 a
Mean
(LSD= 2.3)
33.3±3.4 a 18.4±0.8 b 12.4±0.2 c
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
46
4.2.1.2.1 Population of the green peach aphid (M. persicae) on canola during different dates of observation under experimental farming systems during 2009 and 2010
Mean comparison of data regarding the population of M. persicae for 2009 and 2010
during different dates of observation is presented in Tables 2.7 and 2.8, respectively. The
results indicated that green peach aphid’s population was statistically different on different
dates of observations. During 2009, the highest population was observed on 2nd week of
March (42.3 per 10 cm inflorescence), while minimum aphids population was observed on 1st
week of February (1.5 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence). In the case of combination of
farming systems and dates of observations, 2nd week of March showed the highest population
of aphid’s range of 20.5-79.9 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence. The 2nd highest population
range was recorded on last week of February (10.7-38.6) which was followed by that
recorded in 2nd week of March (12.5-26.9 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence) and February 3rd
week (5.4-23.4 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence). During (2010) aphid’s population showed
same trends regarding farming systems and dates of observation. From both years of studies
it is clear the aphids appear in first week of February and their population increased gradually
reaching maximum in 2nd week of March before starting to decline.
47
Table 2.7 Mean comparison of date regarding the population of M. persicae on canola during different dates of observation under farming systems during 2009
DATES OF OBSERVATION FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 8.3) MEAN
LSD=3 FS1 FS2 FS3
5 February 2.5±0.1 jk 1.6±0.1 k 0.6±0.1 k 1.6±0.5 d
13 February 5.4±0.1 hijk 3.6±0.1 ijk 1.2±0.08 k 3.6±1.2 d
20 February 23.4±0.6 cde 11.3±0.2 ghi 5.4±0.2 hijk 13.4±5.3 c
27 February 38.6±1.9 b 16.9±0.5 efg 10.7±0.2 ghij 22.1±8.4 b
8 March 79.9±7.5 a 29.4±0.6 c 20.5± 0.3de f 43.3±18.5a
15 March 26.9±2.5 cd 24.7±1.3 cde 12.5±0.2 fgh 21.4±4.5b
Mean 29.5±16.3 a 14.5±6.4 b 8.5±4.3 c
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
Table 2.8 Mean comparison of date regarding the population of M. persicae on
canola during different dates of observation under farming systems during 2010
DATES OF
OBSERVATION
FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 8.4) MEAN
LSD=4 FS1 FS2 FS3
5 February 4.5±0.3 h 3.6±0.3 h 2.8±0.2 h 3.6±0.5 e
13 February 10.7±0.3 fgh 8.8±0.3 fgh 8.7±0.4 fgh 8.7±1.2 d
20 February 26.0±0.6 cd 14.6±0.3 efg 8.7±0.3 fgh 16.7±5.3 c
27 February 43.0±1.9 b 22.2±0.5 de 16.0±0.4 ef 27.3±8.4 b
8 March 83.0±7.4 a 33.3±0.6 c 24.4±0.4 d 47.2±18.5 a
15 March 30.0±2.5 cd 28.0± 1.3cd 15.8±0.3 ef 24.7±4.4 b
Mean 33.3±16.4 a 18.4±6.6 b 12.4±4.4 c
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
48
4.2.1.3 Population of mustard aphid (L. erysimi) on canola genotypes under different farming systems during 2009 and 2010
The data for L. erysimi populations on various canola genotypes under different
farming systems during 2009 and 2010 are given in Tables 2.9 and 2.10, respectively. In the
case of the different farming systems, highest population growth was observed on the crop
grown under synthetic fertilizer application (inorganic farming) (16.6 aphids per 10 cm
inflorescence) which was followed by that recorded in farmyard manure application (organic
farming) (13.3 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence) and lowest population was observed in
control treatment (7.0 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence). The results revealed that aphid
population on different canola genotypes were similar for all genotypes. Some genotypes like
‘Cyclone’ and ‘Shiralee’ showed maximum aphid population (13.7 and 13.6 aphids per 10
cm inflorescence respectively), ‘Hyola 401’ showed 2nd highest population (11.5 aphids per
10 cm inflorescence) after ‘Cyclone’ (13.7 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence)’ and ‘Shiralee’
(13.8 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence)’. All other remaining genotypes behaved similarly
towards population growth of L. erysimi. Data regarding the farming system and variety
interaction revealed that the genotype ‘cyclone’ showed the highest population of aphids
(20.4 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence) under synthetic fertilizer application followed by
‘Shiralee’ and ‘Ac-excel’ (19.03, 18.4 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence), respectively. In case
of farmyard manure application (organic farming) all genotypes responded similarly. Data
regarding the population of aphids under control (neither fertilizer nor farmyard manure)
indicated that overall population was less in the control treatment as compared to other
farming systems but it was not completely free from aphids. The genotypes response was
similar toward aphid’s population. All studied varieties had little difference in their resistance
to aphid populations. Same trend was observed during 2nd year of study as given in Table
2.10.
49
Table2.9 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of mustard aphid (L. erysimi) on various canola genotypes under different farming systems during 2009
GENOTYPES FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 5) MEAN
(LSD=2.2) FS1 FS2 FS3
Dunkled 15.9±2.5 bcde 14.1±2.5 cde 7.4±1.5 gh 12.5±2.5 ab
‘Rainbow’ 15.4±2.4 bcde 13.9±2.6 cde 8.2± 1.3fgh 12.5±2.4 ab
Legend 17.1±3.1 abcd 14.3±2.7 cde 6.7±1.6 h 12.7±3.0 ab
AC Excel 18.4±3.0 abc 11.4±2.9 efg 7.2±1.4 gh 12.3±3.2 ab
‘Bulbul-98’ 15.8±2.6 bcde 12.1±2.3 efg 7.4± 1.5fgh 11.8±2.4 ab
‘Punjab sarsoon’ 15.5±2.4 bcde 11.7±2.3 efg 7.8±1.2 fgh 11.7±2.2 ab
‘Cyclone’ 20.4±4.0 a 13.8±2.7 de 6.8±1.3 h 13.7±3.9 a
Oscar 17.4±2.5 abcd 13.1±2.2 de 6.7±1.4 h 12.4±3.0 ab
‘Shiralee’e 19.0±3.5 ab 14.7±2.7 bcde 7.5±1.7 gh 13.7±3.3 a
Pakola 14.8±2.7 bcde 13.9± 2.3cde 7.9±1.7 fgh 12.2±2.1 ab
‘Hyola 401’ 13.1±2.4 de 13.4±2.4 de 7.8±1.7 fgh 11.47±1.8 b
Mean 16.6±1.2 a 13.3±0.6 b 7.0±0.2 c
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
50
Table 2.10 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of mustard aphid L. erysimi on various canola genotypes under different farming systems during 2010
GENOTYPES FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 7.8) MEAN
(LSD=6) FS1 FS2 FS3
Dunkled 23.3±10.9 abc 17.6±2.7 bcdef 12.7±1.9def 17.9±2.8 ab
‘Rainbow’ 18.8±5.8 bcdef 17.3±3.7 bcd 12.7±1.9 ef 16.3±2.6 b
Legend 23.7±5.5 abc 20.4±3.2 bcd 11.9±1.5 ef 18.7±3.1 ab
AC Excel 24.9±10.0 ab 18.6±2.7 bcdef 12.0±1.5 ef 18.5±3.5 ab
‘Bulbul-98’ 19.2±4.0 bcde 16.6±2.2 cdef 11.9±2.0 ef 15.9±1.7 b
‘Punjab sarsoon’ 24.3±5.5 abc 17.3±2.1 bcdef 12.2±1.8 ef 17.9±3.2 ab
‘Cyclone’ 30.8±6.9 a 18.2±2.3 e 11.6±1.9 IJ 20.2±5.2 a
Oscar 24.7±12.0 ab 17.7±2.2 bcdef 12.5±1.8 ef 18.3±3.1 ab
‘Shiralee’e 30.8±4.4 a 18.7±2.7 bcdef 11.8±1.8 ef 20.5±5.0 a
Pakola 23.1±5.5 abc 17.3±2.2 bcdef 12.8±1.8def 17.7±2.9 ab
‘Hyola 401’ 18.1±4.0 bcdef 18.6±2.4 ef 11.3±1.6 f 16.0±1.7 b
Mean 23.8±2.3 a 18.0±0.8 b 12.1±0.2 b
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
51
4.2.1.3.1 Population of mustard aphid (L. erysimi) on canola during different dates of observation under different farming systems during 2009 and 2010.
Mean comparison of the data regarding the population of L. erysimi on canola during
different dates of observation under farming systems during 2009 and 2010 is presented in
Tables 2.11 and 2.12. During 2009 the highest population was observed in synthetic synthetic
fertilizer application (inorganic farming) (16.7 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence) followed by
farmyard manure treatment (organic farming) (13.2 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence) and
control (7.0 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence). As evident from results, population of mustard
aphid was smallest on the 1st week of February (0.9 aphids per 10 cm inflorescence). It
increased with the passage of time and reached to the peak on 2nd week of March (25.6
aphids per 10 cm inflorescence), then it showed decline in population thereafter. In all
farming systems, population was highest with following order March 8 > March 15 >
February 17 > February 13 > February 5. During 2nd year of study aphid population was
more as compared to the 1st year, however, same trends were observed regarding the
population growth of aphids.
52
Table 2.11 Mean comparison of date regarding the population of mustard aphid (L. erysimi) on canola during different dates of observation under farming Systems during 2009
DATES OF
OBSERVATION
FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 3) MEAN
LSD=1.5 FS1 FS2 FS3
5 February 1.7±0.1 fg 1.1±0.1 g 0.2±0.06 g 0.9±0.5 f
13 February 4.6±0.2 f 2.0±0.1 fg 1.2±0.09 g 2.7±0.1 e
20 February 15.8±0.6 d 10.7±0.2 e 4.4±0.2 f 10.3±3.2 d
27 February 24.3±0.9 b 14.5±0.8 d 10.51±0.3 e 16.4±4.0 c
8 March 29.1±0.4 a 30.7±0.3 a 16.9±0.4 d 25.6±4.3a
15 March 24.3±0.6 b 21.0±0.6 c 11.3±0.4 e 18.9±3.9 b
Mean 16.7±6.5 a 13.2±6.5 b 7.4±3.7 c
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
Table 2.12 Mean comparison of date regarding the population of mustard aphid (L.
erysimi) on canola during different dates of observation under farming Systems during 2010
DATES OF
OBSERVATION
FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 5.5) MEAN
LSD= 3 FS1 FS2 FS3
5 February 6.2±0.2 i 5.6±0.2 i 4.5±0.2 i 5.4±0.2 d
13 February 9.1±0.2 hi 6.8±0.1 i 6.0±0.1 i 7.3±0.8 d
20 February 24.0±0.5 cd 14.8±0.2 fg 9.2±0.2 hi 16.0±4.0 c
27 February 33.9±1.4 b 20.8±0.6 de 13.7±0.3 gh 22.8±5.6b
8 March 49.5±4.5 a 33.4±1.4 b 22.9±0.5 cd 35.3±7.3a
15 March 20.1±2.0 def 26.8±4.5 c 16.5±0.4 efg 21.2±2.7 b
Mean 23.8±9.0 a 18.0± 6.1b 12.1±3.9 c
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
53
4.2.2 POPULATION FLUCTUATION OF NATURAL ENEMIES OF APHIDS ON CANOLA CROP UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEMS DURING DIFFERENT DATES OF OBSERVATION IN 2009 AND 2010
4.2.2.1 Population of Ladybird beetle on canola under different farming systems during
different dates of observation in 2009 and 2010
Mean comparison of data regarding the population of ladybird beetle on canola under
different farming systems is given in Tables 2.13 and 2.14. During 2009 it was noted that the
population of ladybird beetle under different farming systems was statistically non
significant. However population was statistically significant among the different dates of
observation. The results indicated that maximum population of ladybird beetle was recorded
on last week of February (2.73 grubs per 10 cm inflorescence). Minimum population
appeared on 2nd week of February (1.31 per 10 cm inflorescence) then its population
increased gradually and reached the maximum on February 27. In case of interaction of
farming system and dates of observation, ladybird beetle population was statistically similar
in all tested farming system. During 2nd year of study similar results were obtained
54
Table 2.13 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of ladybird beetle during different dates of observation under different farming systems during 2009
DATES OF
OBSERVATION
FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 0.8) MEAN
LSD= 0.3 FS1 FS2 FS3
5 February 1.6±0.08 bc 1.5±0.8 bc 1.6±0.08 bc 1.6±0.03cd
13 February 1.4±0.08 c 1.3±0.8 c 1.3±0.08 c 1.3±0.06 d
20 February 2.2± 0.2 abc 2.1± 0.2 abc 2.0±0.2 abc 2.1±0.01bc
27 February 2.8±0.2 a 2.7±0.2 a 2.6±0.2 a 2.7±0.03 a
8 March 2.3±0.1 ab 2.2±0.1 ab 2.1±0.1 ab 2.3±0.03 b
15 March 2.5± 0.2 ab 2.4±0.2 ab 2.3±0.2 ab 2.4±0.03ab
Mean 2.2±0.25 a 2.1±0.24 a 2.0±0.26 a
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
Table 2.14 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of ladybird beetle
during different dates of observation under different farming systems DATES OF
OBSERVATION
FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 1.13) MEAN
LSD= 0.5 FS1 FS2 FS3
5 February 1.9±0.2 abcd 1.8±0.19 bcd 1.9±0.2 abcd 1.9±0.05cd
13 February 1.5±0.2 cd 1.3±0.2 d 1.3±0.19 d 1.4±0.09 d
20 February 2.4±0.3 abcd 1.9±0.18 abcd 2.0±0.3 abcd 2.1±0.1 bc
27 February 2.9±0.2 a 2.9±0.2 ab 2.8±0.2 ab 2.9±0.05 a
8 March 2.6±0.2 abc 2.5±0.19 abc 2.6±0.2 abc 2.6±0.04ab
15 March 2.4±0.3 abcd 2.5±0.2 abc 2.4±0.3 abcd 2.4±0.03abc
Mean 2.3±0.31 a 2.2±0.3 a 2.2±0.3 a
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
55
4.2.2.2 Population of green lacewing on canola under different farming system during different dates of observation in 2009 and 2010
Mean comparison of data regarding the population of green lacewing under different
farming systems during 2009 and 2010 are presented in Tables 2.15 and 2.16, respectively.
Population of green lacewing was statistically at par in all tested system of farmings.
However the population fluctuation was significant among different dates of observations.
The highest population was observed on March 8 (2.5 grubs per plant) followed by February
27 (1.8 predator per plant), March 15, February 20 (1.8 predators per plant), February 13 (1.7
predators per plant) and February 5 (1.5 predators per plant) during both years. In 2010 under
synthetic fertilizer application population recorded was higher than 2009.
56
Table 2.15 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of green lacewing during different dates of observation under different farming systems during 2009
DATES OF
OBSERVATION
FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 0.6) MEAN
LSD= 0.3 FS1 FS2 FS3
5 February 1.6±0.08 b 1.5±0.08 b 1.4±0.08 b 1.5±0.03 c
13 February 1.6±0.1 b 1.8±0.1 b 1.7±0.13 b 1.7±0.04bc
20 February 1.7±0.09 b 1.8±0.09 b 1.8±0.1 b 1.7±0.03bc
27 February 1.8±0.2 b 1.8±0.2 b 1.8±0.1 b 1.8±0.02 b
8 March 2.6±0.17 a 2.4±0.2 a 2.5±0.2 a 2.5±0.03 a
15 March 1.6±0.1 b 1.8±0.1 b 1.7±0.1 b 1.8±0.04 b
Mean
(LSD=0.1782)
1.8±0.2 a 1.81±0.2 a 1.83±0.2 a
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
Table 2.16 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of green lacewing
during different dates of observation under different farming systems during 2010
DATES OF
OBSERVATION
FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 1.03) MEAN
LSD= 0.5 FS1 FS2 FS3
5 February 1.7±0.1 bc 1.6±0.1 bc 1.7±0.20 bc 1.7±0.03 b
13 February 1.7±0.2 bc 1.5±0.2 c 1.5±0.2 c 1.6±0.06 b
20 February 2.0±0.1 abc 1.8±0.1 bc 1.6±0.2 bc 1.8±0.1 b
27 February 2.1±0.2 abc 1.9±0.2 abc 1.9±0.20 abc 1.9±0.06 b
8 March 2.8±0.1 a 2.6±0.2 ab 2.9±0.22 a 2.8±0.07 a
15 March 1.9±0.2 abc 2.0±0.1 abc 1.9±0.21 abc 1.9±0.02 b
Mean 2.0±0.2 a 1.9±0.2 a 1.92±0.3 a
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
57
4.2.2.3 Populations of syrphid fly on canola under different farming system during different dates of observation in 2009 and 2010
The data regarding the population of syrphid flies are presented in Tables 2.17 and
2.18. There was no significant difference in the number of syrphid flies among farming
systems. The results showed that different farming systems did not affect the population of
syrphid flies. The syrphid fly poplation showed the same growth trends as observed in other
natural enemies mentioned above. Its population was smallest on February 13, increased
gradually and reacheded its maximum on March 8 during both years of the studies.
58
Tables 2.17 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of Syrphid fly during different dates of observation under different farming systems during 2009
DATES OF
OBSERVATION
FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 0.6) MEAN
LSD= 0.3 FS1 FS2 FS3
5 February 1.6± 0.08cde 1.4±0.08 cde 1.5±0.08 cde 1.5±0.03bc
13 February 1.4±0.1 de 1.3±0.1 de 1.3±0.10 de 1.3±0.02cd
20 February 1.7±0.12 bcd 1.7±0.1 bcd 1.8±0.1 abcd 1.7±0.01 b
27 February 1.8±0.12 abcd 1.8±0.15 abcd 1.8±0.1 abcd 1.8±0.06 b
8 March 2.3±0.17 a 2.2±0.12 ab 2.1±0.1 abc 2.2±0.01 a
15 March 1.0±0.18 e 1.1±0.13 e 1.1±0.02 e 1.0±0.01 d
Mean 1.6± 0.22a 1.6±0.23a 1.6±0.20 a
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
Table 2.18 Mean comparison of data regarding the population of Syrphid fly during
different dates of observation under different farming systems during 2010
DATES OF
OBSERVATION
FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 1.03) MEAN
LSD= 0.5 FS1 FS2 FS3
5 February 1.82±0.1 abc 1.6±0.2 abc 1.9±0.2 abc 1.8±0.08bc
13 February 1.5±0.2 bc 1.2±0.2 c 1.3±0.2 c 1.4±0.1 cd
20 February 2.0±0.2 abc 1.6±0.2bc 1.7±0.3 abc 1.8±0.2 bc
27 February 2.1±0.3 abc 1.9±0.3 abc 1.9±0.3 abc 1.9±0.04 b
8 March 2.7±0.2 a 2.4±0.2 ab 2.5±0.2 ab 2.5±0.07 a
15 March 1.3±0.1 c 1.2±0.1 c 1.2±0.12 c 1.3±0.05 d
Mean 1.9±0.26 a 1.7±0.27 a 1.8±0.3 a
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
59
4.2.3 DISSCUSSION
4.2.3.1 To study the effect of canola cultivars with varying levels of resistance to aphids under different farming systems (synthetic fertilizers and farmyard manure application)
Population fluctuation of canola aphids were studied on eleven canola genotypes
under different farming system during 2009-2010. Three aphid species i.e. Brevicoryne
brassicae, M. persicae and L. erysimi were recorded during studies. Data regarding the
population of aphids under different farming systems showed that maximum population of
aphids was recorded in canola crop grown under fertilizer application; however, it was also
noted that population of M. persicae was higher than the other two species under fertilizer
application. The 2nd highest population was found on canola grown under farmyard manure
application followed by that recorded in the control treatment with no fertilizer application.
These results are in conformity with those of White (1984), Patriquin et al. (1995), Erdal et
al. (2003), Ponti et al (2007) and Staley et al. (2010) who observed that crop which was
supplied more synthetic nitrogen received maximum aphid infestation while canola crop
grown with organic matter proved to be some what resistant. The results of Hsu et al. (2009),
who concluded that concentration of glucosinolate was more in canola grown under organic
farming as compared to canola grown under fertilizer application, also confirm the finding of
present studies. The resistance in plant treated with organic matter may be due to more
synthesis of glucosinolate which repels the aphids as reported by Hsu et al. (2009). Higher
population of aphids in case of synthetic fertilizer application may be due to positive
correlation of the nutritive quality of the plant to the aphids as it was observed in the present
studies that synthetic fertilizer application enhanced the nutritive components of the canola
plants as compared to those treated with farmyard manure and made it more attractive to
aphids as a food source. However, the less attraction of aphids to plants treated with
farmyard manure is due to less nutritive components of the plants or due to more production
of allelochemical; this needs more experimentation and research. No information in the
reviewed literature is available to confirm the reasons of this aspect of studies. According to
the Mineral Balance Hypothesis, optimization of minerals in the soil as well as their
availability to plants is explained by the biological buffering ability of the soil, which is more
in organically treated soils as compared to synthetic fertilizers treated soils. These biological
buffering effects of organically treated soils cause reduction in insect pest infestation and
60
increase in host plant resistance to insects (Phelan et al., 1996). The variation in the
occurrence of aphid species in organic and conventional fertilizer treatments may also be
attributed to the fact that organic treatments supply a wider range of nutrients to treated
plants ultimately affecting the concentration of primary and secondary metabolites as
compared to the conventional fertilizer treatments which provide only the narrow range of
specific nutrients (NPK) to treated plants, as reported by Staley et al. (2010). Our results also
demonstrate that aphid’s population significantly varies among three evaluated systems. The
organic and conventional synthetic fertilizer application system altered the abundance or
occurrence of aphid species on canola.
In the case of the performance of various canola genotypes, the results reveal that
none of the genotype was found to be aphid free, all varieties showed aphid infestation,
However some genotypes was found to be susceptible with maximum population of aphids
like ‘cyclone’, ‘Shiralee’ and ‘Oscar’ in both years of studies and some genotypes were
observed relatively resistant with minimum population of aphids i.e. ‘Hyola-401’ and
‘Rainbow’; while rest of other varieties showed intermediate to aphids infestation. Our
findings are similar to those of Murghub et al. (2009), who reported that all the evaluated
genotypes were found susceptible to both of the aphid’s the species (B. brassicae and L.
erysimi) till maturity of the crop. The results reported by Aslam (2005), who documented that
all the evaluated genotypes of canola had similar trend of aphid populations, also confirm the
results of present studies.
Dates of observation were found statistically different regarding the population of
aphids. As evident from results that the highest population of all three aphid species was
observed in 2nd week of March under all three studied systems of farming during both year of
studies. It was noted that population appeared in 1st week of February in all three systems of
farming. These results are in conformity with those of Biswas and Das (2000), Rohilla et al.
(1996) and Aslam et al. (2002) who reported that aphids population started on 1st week of
January, increased gradually and reached to the peak on 2nd week of March.
61
4.2.3.2 Population fluctuation of natural enemies of aphids on canola crop under different farming systems (synthetic fertilizers and farmyard manure application) during different dates of observation in 2009-10
Study was conducted regarding the population fluctuation of the natural enemies of
canola aphids under different farming systems during different dates of observations in 2009-
10. Three natural enemies were observed during studies i.e. ladybird beetle, green lacewing
and syrphid fly. Data regarding the population of ladybird beetle during different dates of
observation showed that highest population of ladybird beetle was observed on last week of
February followed by the 2nd and 3rd week of March. This may be due to the fact that aphid
population was maximum at that time, which attracted the natural enemies. While minimum
population was on February during both years of study. It may be attributed to the fact that
population of aphids on crop was less at that time so natural enemies may have moved away
in search of food. Moreover it was noted that population of ladybird beetle was slightly
higher in canola grown under synthetic fertilizer treatment as compared to farmyard manure
application and control but it was not statistically significant. Similarly the population of
green lacewing and syrphid fly was found maximum on 2nd week of March. The population
1st time appeared in 1st week of February, it increased gradually and reached maximum on 2nd
week of March. This may be due to the highest aphid population that was present at that
time. Incase of farming systems, population of both above mentioned natural enemies were
slightly more on canola grown under synthetic fertilizer applicationas compared to other
farming systems but it was statistically non significant. Slightly more population of natural
enemies may be due to the presence of more aphids under fertilizer application.
62
SECTIONIII
4.3 BIOCHEMICAL PLANT CHARACTERS OF SELECTED CANOLA GENOTYPES AND THEIR CORRELATION WITH APHID POPULATION
4.3.1 NITROGEN
The data regarding nitrogen percentage in the inflorescence of different varieties of
canola are given in Table 3.1. The data regarding the percentage of nitrogen contents of
inflorescence of diiferent genotypes under different farming system revealed that nitrogen
percentage in inflorescence of canola was higher in synthetic fertilizer application (2.1%)
followed by farmyard manure (1.86%) and control (1.74%). The results revealed significant
differences among genotypes regarding nitrogen percentage. The genotype ‘Shiralee’ showed
maximum percentage of nitrogen (2.0%) followed by that recorded in ‘cyclone’ and Ac-excel
(1.98 and 1.92%, respectively). The genotypes ‘Shiralee’ (2.0 %), ‘Cyclone’ (1.98%) and
‘Ac-excel’ (1.92%) were not statistically sifferent from each other but were statistically
different from ‘Rainbow’ and ‘Hyola-401’ with (1.82 and 1.77%, respectively). In case of
farming systems and genotypes interaction, the maximum nitrogen percentage under
synthetic synthetic fertilizer application (inorganic farming) was observed in the genotype
‘Shiralee’ (2.2%) and ‘cyclone’ (2.2%) followed by that recorded in ‘Ac excel’ (2.1.0%),
‘Punjab sarsoon’ (2.08%) and ‘Rainbow’. The smallest nitrogen percentage was observed in
the genotype ‘Hyola-401’ (1.77%) under the control conditions.
4.3.2 PHOSPHOROUS
The data pertaining to phosphorous percentage in the inflorescence of different
varieties of canola are given in Table 3.2.There were significant differences among the
varieties in terms of phosphorous percentage. The highest phosphorous concentrations were
found in the genotypes ‘Punjab sarsoon’ and ‘Shiralee’ (1.15%) and ‘Hyola 401’ had 1.13%
phosphorous contents. The genotypes ‘Ac excel’ and ‘Rainbow’ were not statistically
different from each other. Data regarding the phosphorous percentage in canola genotypes
under different farming systems revealed that the highest phosphorous contents were
observed in genotypes ‘Shiralee’, ‘Cyclone’ and ‘Punjab sarsoon’ (1.176, 1.73, 1.17%,
respectively) under synthetic fertilizer application. It was noted that lowest phosphorous
63
percentage was observed in control in the genotype ‘Ac excel’ and ‘Rainbow’ both with
similar phosphorous contents (1.11, 1.11%).
64
Table 3.1 Comparison of means for the data on the nitrogen (%) of different selected genotypes canola (Brassica napus)
GENOTYPES FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 0.20) MEAN
(LSD=0.0491) FS1 FS2 FS3
Shiralee 2.25 a 1.95 bcde 1.80 efg 2.00 a
Cyclone 2.23 a 1.93 bcde 1.78 efg 1.98 a
‘Punjab sarsoon’ 2.08 abc 1.87 def 1.77 efg 1.91 ab
AC Excel 2.13 ab 1.86 def 1.77 efg 1.92 a
Rainbow 2.01 bcd 1.78 efg 1.68 fg 1.82 bc
Hyola -401 1.89 cde 1.77 efg 1.66 g 1.77 c
Mean
(LSD =0.054)
2.10 a 1.86 b 1.74 c
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
Table 3.2 Comparison of means for the data on the phosphorous (%) of different selected genotypes canola (Brassica napus)
GENOTYPES FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 0.20) MEAN
(LSD=0.0491) FS1 FS2 FS3
Shiralee 1.17 a 1.16 ab 1.13 bcd 1.15 ab
Cyclone 1.17 a 1.14 abcd 1.12 bcd 1.14 abc
‘Punjab sarsoon’ 1.17 a 1.14 abcd 1.15 abc 1.15 a
AC Excel 1.16 ab 1.14 abcd 1.11 d 1.13 c
Rainbow 1.16 ab 1.14 abcd 1.11 d 1.13 c
Hyola -401 1.15 ab 1.14 abcd 1.11 cd 1.13 bc
Mean
(LSD =0.054)
1.16 a 1.14 b 1.12 c
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
65
4.3.3 PROTEIN
The data pertaining to protein contents in canola inflorescence is presented in the
Table 3.3. The results revealed that there were significant difference among farming systems
and genotypes. In general, it was observed that protein content were higher in canola crop
grown under synthetic fertilizer application (13.14%) compared with farmyard manure
application (11.65%) and control (10.91%). In the case of concentration of protein in
different genotypes under different farming systems, the highest concentration was observed
in ‘Shiralee’ (14.0 %) followed by ‘cyclone’ (13.9 %) under synthetic fertilizer application.
The minimum protein contents were observed in genotype ‘Hyola 401’ (10.38%) under
control treatment.
4.3.4 FAT
The data regarding fat contents in canola genotypes under different farming system is
presented in Table 3.4. In case of different farming systems, the concentration was highest in
fertilizer system (5.38%) while it was at par in control (4.16%) and farmyard manure
application (4.44%). As evident from results that fat contents were significantly different
among genotypes. Maximum fat contents were observed in ‘Rainbow’ (6.88%) followed by
that recorded in ‘Hyola-401’ (4.88%), while minimum fat was recorded in shiralee (3.33%).
In case of different genotypes and farming systems, data showed that highest fat contents
were observed in the genotype ‘Rainbow’ grown under synthetic fertilizer application
(7.66%) followed by that recorded in ‘Rainbow’grown under farmyard manure application
(7.0%). However, the minimum fat contents were observed in the genotype Ac-excel grown
under control condition ( 2.0 %) the results revealed that synthetic fertilizer application
significantly affected the fat concentrations in the inflorescence of canola cultivars.
66
Table 3.3 Comparison of means for the data on the crude protein (%) of different selected genotypes canola (Brassica napus)
GENOTYPES FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 1.269) MEAN
(LSD=0.5875) FS1 FS2 FS3
‘Shiralee’ 14.06 a 12.21 bcde 11.27 efg 12.51 a
‘Cyclone’ 13.96 a 12.08 bcde 11.17 efg 12.40 a
‘Punjab sarsoon’ 13.02 abc 11.71 def 11.10 efg 11.94 ab
AC Excel 13.33 ab 11.64 defg 11.08 efg 12.02 a
‘Rainbow’ 12.60 bcd 11.17 efg 10.50 fg 11.42 bc
Hyola- 401 11.85 cde 11.10 efg 10.38 g 11.11 c
Mean
(LSD=0.33)
13.14 a 11.65 b 10.91 c Mean
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
Table 3.4 Comparison of means for the data on the fat (%) of different selected
genotypes canola (Brassica napus) GENOTYPES FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 3.00) MEAN
(LSD=1.3922) FS1 FS2 FS3
‘Shiralee’ 3.00 cd 4.00 bcd 3.00 cd 3.33 c
‘Cyclone’ 5.00 abcd 4.00 bcd 3.00 cd 4.00 bc
‘Punjab sarsoon’ 5.33 abc 5.00 abcd 4.00 bcd 4.77 b
AC Excel 7.00 ab 3.33 cd 2.00 d 4.11 bc
‘Rainbow’ 7.66 a 7.00 ab 6.00 abc 6.88 a
Hyola-401 4.33 bcd 3.33 cd 7.00 ab 4.88 b
Mean
(LSD=0.794)
5.38 a
4.44 b 4.16 b
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
67
4.3.5 SODIUM
The mean comparison of sodium content in canola genotypes grown under different
farming systems are presented in Table 3.5. Sodium concentration was not statistically
different among the genotypes. However sodium concentration was statistically significant
among the different systems of farming studied. The highest sodium content was observed
under synthetic fertilizer application and then the control. Moreover, in combination of
farming system and genotypes it was observed that some genotypes were statistically
different from others. Like ‘‘Shiralee’ grown under synthetic fertilizer application contains
more sodium concentration than ‘cyclone’, ‘Punjab sarsoon’ and ‘Ac excel’ ‘Rainbow’’and
‘Hyola-401’. This others genotypes mentioned above.
4.3.6 POTASSIUM
Data regarding the potassium concentration in canola genotypes grown under
different farming system are presented in Table 3.6. Potassium concentration was maximum
under synthetic fertilizer application followed by farmyard manure and control conditions.
The results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences among genotypes
in potassium concentrations. It was noted that the genotypes behaved significantly under the
different farming systems. It is clear from the results that potassium concentration was
maximum in the genotype ‘Shiralee’ and ‘Hyola-401’ grown under synthetic fertilizer
application (1.36, 1.3%), respectively. No other genotypes were statistically different from
each other.
4.3.7 FIBER
Data regarding the fiber contents in canola genotypes grown under different farming
systems are presented in Table 3.7. In case of different farming systems it was noted that
synthetic fertilizer application and farmyard manure (organic farming) contain similar
amount of fiber contents, while control treatment contained less fiber contents. As evident
from results that varieties respond differently regarding fiber contents. It was noted that
highest fiber content was found in the genotype ‘Shiralee’ (21.3%). While the genotypes
‘cyclone’, ‘Rainbow’ and ‘Hyola’ were found statistically at par regarding the fiber contents.
It is clear that all varieties behave similarly on synthetic fertilizer application system and
farmyard manure application and control except ‘Punjab sarsoon’, which showed minimum
fiber contents under control treatment.
selected genotypes canola (Brassica napus) GENOTYPES FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 0.1308) MEAN
(LSD=0.06) FS1 FS2 FS3
‘Shiralee’ 0.33 a 0.22 ab 0.28ab 0.27 a
‘Cyclone’ 0.28 ab 0.24 ab 0.22ab 0.24 a
‘Punjab sarsoon’ 0.28 ab 0.33 a 0.25ab 0.28 a
AC Excel 0.25 ab 0.30 ab 0.19 b 0.24 a
‘Rainbow’ 0.29 ab 0.27 ab 0.25ab 0.27 a
Hyola-401 0.29 ab 0.3267 a 0.22 ab 0.28 a
Mean
(LSD=0.0348)
0.289 a 0.282 a 0.23 b 1.35 a
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
Table 3.6 Comparison of means for the data on the potassium (%) of different
selected genotypes canola (Brassica napus) GENOTYPES FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 0.0225) MEAN
(LSD=0.010) FS1 FS2 FS3
‘Shiralee’ 1.36 a 1.35 abc 1.33 c 1.34 a
‘Cyclone’ 1.3 ab 1.34 abc 1.34 abc 1.34 a
‘Punjab sarsoon’ 1.3 ab 1.34 abc 1.33 c 1.34 a
AC Excel 1.3 abc 1.34 bc 1.33 c 1.34 a
‘Rainbow’ 1.3 ab 1.34 abc 1.3 bc 1.34 a
Hyola-401 1.3 a 1.343 abc 1.33 c 1.34 a
Mean
1.34 b
1.33 c 1.32 c
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
Table 3.7 Comparison of means for the data on the fiber (%) of different selectedgenotypes canola (Brassica napus)
GENOTYPES FARMING SYSTEMS (LSD= 5.92) MEAN
(LSD=2.74) FS1 FS2 FS3
‘Shiralee’ 23.3 a 23.0 a 17.6 abc 21.3 a
‘Cyclone’ 21.8 abc 22 ab 19 abc 20.9 ab
‘Punjab sarsoon’ 18.6 abc 20 abc 16.0 c 18.2 b
AC Excel 20.3 abc 17.0 bc 17.6 abc 18.3 b
‘Rainbow’ 21 abc 20.3 abc 20.6 abc 20.6 ab
Hyola-401 20.3 abc 20.3 abc 19.0 abc 19.8 ab
Mean
(LSD= 1.57)
20.9 a 20.4 a 18.3 b
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD Test, at α =
0.05 FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
POPULATION OF APHIDS OF CANOLA GROWN UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEM (SYNTHETIC FERTILIZERS AND FARMYARD MANURE APPLICATION)
Various chemical factors determined from the top 10 cm shoots of canola plants
grown under organic and inorganic farming systems were correlated with aphids population.
The same parameters were processed for multiple linear regression models through step to
see the impact of chemical plant factors and also determine the role of individual chemical
factor in population fluctuation of canola aphids.
4.3.8.1 Simple correlation
The Data regarding the correlation of biochemical factors of canola grown under
fertilizer, Farmyard manure application and control is given in Tables 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10,
respectively. Nitrogen and protein contents showed significant and positive correlation with
aphid’s population on canola grown under synthetic fertilizer application. There was also a
positive correlation between protein contents and aphid population growth under farmyard
manure and in control. In contrast fat was negatively correlated with aphid population in the
synthetic fertilizer application system. There was no significant correlation between fat
content and aphid population growth under the other two farming system studied. There was
no significant correlation between any of other nutrients and aphid population. In general the
protein is the key nutrient that affects aphids population growth on canola grown under all
farming system studied.
parameters of canola grown under synthetic fertilizer application(FS1)
Aphid
Populati
on
N P K Protein Na Fat Fiber
Population 1.000
N 0.955** 1.000
0.003
P 0.641 0.735 1.000
0.170 0.096
K 0.047 -0.019 0.198 1.000
0.929 0.971 0.708
Protein 0.955** 1.000** 0.735 -0.019 1.000
0.003 0.000 0.096 0.971
Na 0.112 0.169 0.359 0.816* 0.169 1.000
0.833 0.749 0.484 0.048 0.749
Fat -0.391 -0.287 -0.531 -0.854* -0.287 -0.732 1.000
0.443 0.581 0.278 0.030 0.581 0.098
Fiber 0.561 0.581 0.231 0.541 0.581 0.667 -0.453 1.000
0.246 0.226 0.659 0.268 0.226 0.148 0.367
Upper values indicated Pearson’s correlation coefficient; Lower values indicated level of
significance at 5% probability.
* = Significant (P < 0.05); ** = Highly significant (P < 0.01)
parameters of canola grown farmyard manure application(FS2)
Aphid
Populati
on.
N P K Protein Na Fat Fiber
Population 1.000
N -0.122 1.000
0.818
P 0.283 0.647 1.000
0.587 0.165
K 0.712 0.365 0.736 1.000
0.113 0.477 0.095
Protein -0.122 1.000** 0.647 0.365 1.000
0.818 0.000 0.165 0.477
Na -0.636 -0.663 -0.573 -0.765 -0.663 1.000
0.175 0.152 0.235 0.077 0.152
Fat 0.426 -0.326 -0.193 0.359 -0.326 -0.107 1.000
0.399 0.529 0.714 0.484 0.529 0.840
Fiber 0.412 0.472 0.681 0.881* 0.472 -0.664 0.111 1.000
0.417 0.344 0.136 0.020 0.344 0.150 0.833
Upper values indicated Pearson’s correlation coefficient; Lower values indicated level of
significance at 5% probability.
* = Significant (P < 0.05); ** = Highly significant (P < 0.01)
parameters of canola grown under control conditions (FS3)
Aphid
Populati
on
N P K Protein Na Fat Fiber
Population 1.000
N -0.429 1.000
0.396
P 0.173 0.552 1.000
0.743 0.256
K -0.098 -0.033 -0.174 1.000
0.853 0.950 0.741
Protein -0.429 1.000** 0.552 -0.033 1.000
0.396 0.000 0.256 0.950
Na 0.602 0.157 0.473 -0.072 0.157 1.000
0.206 0.766 0.343 0.893 0.766
Fat 0.557 -0.924** -0.249 0.013 -0.924** 0.147 1.000
0.251 0.009 0.634 0.981 0.009 0.781
Fiber 0.152 -0.647 -0.757 0.630 -0.647 -0.080 0.518 1.000
0.773 0.165 0.082 0.180 0.165 0.880 0.293
Upper values indicated Pearson’s correlation coefficient; Lower values indicated level of
significance at 5% probability.
* = Significant (P < 0.05); ** = Highly significant (P < 0.01)
population fluctuation canola aphids under different farming systems.
The results regarding multiple linear regression models between population
fluctuation of canola aphids and the chemical factors along with coefficient of determination
values are presented in Tables 3.11 (a,b,c,d,e,f,g). The results revealed that nitrogen plays a
significant and maximum role (91.1%) in the population fluctuation of canola aphids on
canola grown under synthetic fertilizer application. In contrast, fat content had a negative
effect on aphid population under synthetic fertilizer application. The rest of the nutrients had
no significant effects on aphid population growth. One exception was sodium, which
negatively affected the aphid population growth under farmyard manure application. The
contribution of nitrogen (91.1%), phosphorous (41.1%) and fiber (31.5%) in the variation of
aphid population was found more in synthetic fertilizer applications; while the role of
potassium (50.6%), sodium (40.4%) and fats (18.21%) in the population fluctuation of aphids
was found more in organic farming systems.
biochemical plant characteristics on aphid population under different farming systems.
(a) Multiple linear regression model for nitrogen
Farming system coefficients SE t-value R² (%) F-value
Fs1 constant -133.510 31.316 -4.263* 91.1 41.04**
X 95.265 14.871 6.406**
Fs2 constant 48.983 29.712 1.649 1.5 0.06
X -3.908 15.926 -0.245
Fs3 constant 36.214 13.451 2.692 18.4 0.90
X -7.310 7.697 -0.950
* = Significant (P < 0.05); ** = Highly significant (P < 0.01) Table 3.11 (b) Multiple linear regression model for Phosphorous
Farming system coefficients SE t-value R² (%) F-value
Fs1 constant -1010.969 645.500 -1.566 41.1 2.79
X 923.326 553.007 1.670
Fs2 constant -44.363 145.905 -0.304 0.08 0.35
X 75.088 127.302 0.590
Fs3 constant 11.459 34.062 0.336 0.03 0.12
X 10.666 30.304 0.352
* = Significant (P < 0.05); ** = Highly significant (P < 0.01) Table 3.11 (c) Multiple linear regression model for potassium
Farming system coefficients SE t-value R² (%) F-value
Fs1 constant -146.649 2250.154 -0.065 0.2 0.01
X 157.045 1655.872 0.095
Fs2 constant -615.245 324.256 -1.897 50.6 4.11
X 488.533 241.132 2.026
Fs3 constant 54.118 155.029 0.349 1.0 0.04
X -22.956 116.030 -0.198
* = Significant (P < 0 05); ** = Highly significant (P < 0 01)
Farming system coefficients SE t-value R² (%) F-value
Fs1 constant -133.510 31.316 -4.263 91.1 41.04**
X 15.242 2.379 6.406
Fs2 constant 48.983 29.712 1.649 1.5 0.06
X -0.625 2.548 -0.245
Fs3 constant 36.214 13.451 2.692 18.4 0.90
X -1.170 1.232 -0.950
* = Significant (P < 0.05); ** = Highly significant (P < 0.01) Table 3.11 (e) Multiple linear regression model for sodium
Farming system coefficients SE t-value R² (%) F-value
Fs1 constant 49.679 75.955 0.654 1.3 0.05
X 59.006 261.576 0.226
Fs2 constant 51.011 5.715 8.927** 40.4 2.71
X -32.955 20.008 -1.647
Fs3 constant 18.999 2.974 6.389** 36.2 2.72
X 18.974 12.586 1.507
* = Significant (P < 0.05); ** = Highly significant (P < 0.01) Table 3.11 (f) Multiple linear regression model for fat
Farming system coefficients SE t-value R² (%) F-value
Fs1 constant 83.188 20.117 4.135* 15.3 0.72
X -3.049 3.584 -0.851
Fs2 constant 38.521 3.505 10.989** 18.2 0.89
X 0.714 0.758 0.942
Fs3 constant 22.210 1.001 22.195** 31.1 1.80
X 0.297 0.221 1.342
* = Significant (P < 0.05); ** = Highly significant (P < 0.01)
Farming system coefficients SE t-value R² (%) F-value
Fs1 constant -32.909 73.642 -0.447 31.5 1.84
X 4.765 3.512 1.357
Fs2 constant 32.116 10.652 3.015 16.9 0.82
X 0.469 0.519 0.903
Fs3 constant 21.634 5.899 3.667 2.3 0.10
X 0.099 0.321 0.308
* = Significant (P < 0.05); ** = Highly significant (P < 0.01)
4.3.9.1 Biochemical plant characters
The study was conducted to determine the role of biochemical plant characteristics
like nitrogen, potassium, crude fiber, fat, sodium, phosphorus and crude proteins in plant
tolerance to aphids. The results showed that as nutrient varies from variety to variety and
farming systems to farming systems of canola. Under fertilizer application, percentage of
nitrogen was maximum followed by that recorded in farmyard manure application and
control. Similarly, high concentration of nitrogen in canola leaves had a positive and
significant correlation with aphid incidence. This may be due to presence of free amino acids
in the plant parts that may attract aphids as reported by Laisvune (2008). Theses results are
similar with those of Way and Cammell (1970) who found that soluble nitrogen contents and
aphid’s population were higher under fertilizer application. The results of Laisvune (2008)
indicated that abundance of aphids was maximum on cabbage grown under synthetic
fertilizer application as compared to cabbage grown under farmyard manure application are
also highly in accordance with the results of the present studies.
The response of varieties to nutrient accumulation in leaves varies under three
evaluated systems. It was observed that percentage of nitrogen was higher in the genotype
‘Shiralee’in all studied systems of farmings which was susceptible to aphids under both
systems of farmings. Similarly the nitrogen concentration was minimum in genotype ‘Hyola
401’ which proved to be resistant to aphids showing less population of aphids. These results
cannot be compared or contradicted as information on the response of canola cultivars to
different cropping systems are not available in the literature reviewed. A significant variation
in concentration of phosphorous, protein, sodium and potassium was observed for farming
systems; however, nonsignificant variation was recorded for canola cultivars. Phosphorous,
protein, sodium and potassium contents were the maximum in synthetic fertilizer application
followed by farmyard manure application and control. Data regarding protein concentration
in canola showed that protein contents were higher in ‘Shiralee’ grown under synthetic
fertilizer application system followed by ‘cyclone’ in the same system. While the lowest
protein content were found in the genotype ‘‘Hyola’’ grown under control treatment. Fat and
fiber contents vary among genotypes and farming systems studied. The lowest fat
concentration was observed in genotype ‘Shiralee’ and highest fat content was found in the
fertilizer application and farmyard manure; however, it was less in control conditions. The
fiber contents were different in different genotypes. Its concentration was the maximum in
genotype ‘Shiralee’ and minimum in ‘Punjab sarsoon’ while rests of genotypes have similar
concentration. Susceptibility of ‘Shiralee’ may be due more fiber contents. These results
cannot be compared and contradicted as information on these lines are lacking in the
literature reviewed.
4.4 INTERACTION BETWEEN WEATHER FACTORS AND POPULATION OF CANOLA APHIDS DURING 2009 AND 2010
The objective of study was to determine the trend in population fluctuation of canola
aphids at various dates of observation corresponding to the respective weather factors during
2009 and 2010.
4.4.1 POPULATION OF CANOLA APHIDS VERSUS WEATHER FACTOR DURING 2009 AND 2010
The results presented in the fig 4.1 and 4.2 regarding population of canola aphids
versus weather factors during 2009 and 2010 showed that population of canola aphids
appeared during the 1st week of February, it increased throughout subsequent dates of
observation and reacheded its peak on March 8. Weather factors in March included a
maximum temperature of 26 ºC with minimum temperature 13.5ºC, average temperature 19.8
ºC and 41% relative humidity. Population level declined after the date. In both farming
systems studied (organic and conventional) weather factors had similar effects on aphids
populations during both years of the studies.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
05.0
2.09
13.0
2.09
20.0
2.09
27.0
2.09
08.0
3.09
15.0
3.09
05.0
2.09
13.0
2.09
20.0
2.09
27.0
2.09
08.0
3.09
15.0
3.09
05.0
2.09
13.0
2.09
20.0
2.09
27.0
2.09
08.0
3.09
15.0
3.09
Farming system 1 Farming system 2 Farming system 3
Tem
per
atu
re (
°C),
RH
(%
), R
ain
fall
(mm
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Po
pu
lati
on
Max.temp Min.temp RH Rainfall Population
Fig.4.1 Graphical representation of impact of weather factors on population fluctuation of canola aphids during 2009
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
05.0
2.10
13.0
2.10
20.0
2.10
27.0
2.10
08.0
3.10
15.0
3.10
05.0
2.10
13.0
2.10
20.0
2.10
27.0
2.10
08.0
3.10
15.0
3.10
05.0
2.10
13.0
2.10
20.0
2.10
27.0
2.10
08.0
3.10
15.0
3.10
Farming system 1 Farming system 2 Farming system 3
Tem
per
atu
re (
°C),
RH
(%
), R
ain
fall
(mm
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Po
pu
lati
on
Max.temp Min.temp RH Rainfall Population
Fig. 4.2 Graphical representation of the impact of weather factors on population fluctuation of canola aphids during 2010
A study was conducted to determine the role of weather on population fluctuation of
aphids. The data were processed for simple correlation and multiple linear regression models
with the objective to find the impact of these factors on the population fluctuation of aphids.
4.4.2.1 Simple correlation between weather factors and population of aphids on canola
Tables 4.1 and 4.2 shows the correlation coefficient values for each weather factors
versus canola aphid population comparison. The results indicate that there was a significant
correlation between weather factors and aphid populations. The temperature was positively
correlated with aphid population while relative humidity and rainfall were negatively
correlated during 2009. Farmyard manure application and control treatment only the
temperatures and relative humidity significantly affected aphid populations while under
synthetic fertilizer application all abiotic factors showed significant effect on aphid
populations. During 2010 none of abiotic factors were significantly correlated with aphid
populations except for minimum temprature under farmyard manure and control treatments.
Farming system Temperature (°C) Relative humidity (%) Rain fall (mm)
Maximum Minimum
Fs1 0.632 0.884* -0.661 -0.077
0.178 0.019 0.153 0.885
Fs2 0.845* 0.923** -0.879* -0.151
0.034 0.009 0.021 0.776
Fs3 0.814* 0.947** -0.838* -0.228
0.049 0.004 0.037 0.665
Overall 0.617** 0.765** -0.642** -0.108
0.006 0.000 0.004 0.668
* = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Table 4.2 Correlation between weather factors and Aphid population during 2010 Farming system Temperature (°C) Relative humidity (%) Rain fall (mm)
Maximum Minimum
Fs1 0.496 0.761 0.313 0.196
0.317 0.079 0.545 0.710
Fs2 0.777 0.919* -0.074 0.032
0.069 0.010 0.890 0.952
Fs3 0.691 0.915* 0.112 0.149
0.129 0.011 0.833 0.779
Overall 0.482* 0.663** 0.142 0.116
0.043 0.003 0.575 0.647
* = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01)
Role of weather in population fluctuations of canola aphids was determined by
processing the data for multiple linear regression analysis. The results relating to the Multiple
Linear Regression Models along with coefficient of determination values between weather
factors and population of canola aphids during 2009 and 2010 are given in Tables 4.3 and 4.4.
The results revealed that maximum temperature did not affect population fluctuations of canola
aphids. The effect of minimum temperature was found to be significant under synthetic fertilizer,
farmyard application and control during 2009. However, in 2010 none of the abiotic factors
showed a significant effect on aphid population growth.
and weather factors during 2009 Farming system Model Regression coefficients t-value R² (%)
B SE
FS1 1 (constant)
Max
Min
RH
Rain
2007.473
-63.679
49.078
-16.247
0.426
542.485
13.100
3.756
3.981
4.739
3.70
-4.86
13.07*
-4.08
0.09
99.7
2 (constant)
Max
Min
RH
2043.734
-64.546
49.070
-16.508
257.419
6.285
2.666
1.932
7.94*
-10.27**
18.41**
-8.54*
99.7
FS2 1 (constant)
Max
Min
RH
Rain
1555.042
-39.467
16.916
-12.863
-2.363
345.941
8.354
2.395
2.539
3.022
4.50
-4.72
7.06
-5.07
-0.78
99.7
2 (constant)
Max
Min
RH
1353.823
-34.651
16.956
-11.414
207.550
5.068
2.150
1.558
6.52*
-6.84*
7.89*
-7.33*
99.5
FS3 1 (constant)
Max
Min
RH
Rain
935.817
-25.373
13.383
-7.678
-3.239
219.760
5.307
1.522
1.613
1.920
4.26
-4.78
8.80
-4.76
-1.69
99.8
2 (constant)
Max
Min
RH
660.025
-18.773
13.438
-5.692
203.701
4.974
2.110
1.529
3.24#
-3.77#
6.37*
-3.72#
99.4
# = Significant (P<0.10); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01)
and weather factors during 2010 Farming system Model Regression coefficients t-value R² (%)
B SE
FS1 1 (constant)
Max
Min
RH
Rain
411.910
-40.640
51.040
1.845
-111.050
1724.134
91.149
77.045
7.995
232.379
0.24
-0.45
0.66
0.23
-0.48
74.5
2 (constant)
Max
Min
Rain
709.915
-52.828
61.075
-130.064
829.233
53.918
46.159
157.685
0.86
-0.98
1.32
-0.82
73.2
FS2 1 (constant)
Max
Min
RH
Rain
5.754
-1.770
10.786
-0.438
-2.289
615.479
32.538
27.504
2.854
82.954
0.01
-0.05
0.39
-0.15
-0.03
84.8
2 (constant)
Max
Min
RH
-8.855
-0.927
10.078
-0.410
222.107
7.975
7.016
1.888
-0.04
-0.12
1.44
-0.22
84.8
FS3 1 (constant)
Max
Min
RH
Rain
32.322
-4.676
10.173
0.107
-10.344
395.749
20.922
17.685
1.835
53.339
0.08
-0.22
0.58
0.06
-0.19
86.1
2 (constant)
Max
Min
Rain
49.532
-5.380
10.753
-11.442
185.774
12.079
10.341
35.326
0.27
-0.45
1.04
-0.32
86.1
# = Significant (P<0.10); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01)
A study was conducted to determine the role of weather in population fluctuation of
aphids. The data were processed for simple correlation and multiple linear regression models
with the objective to determine the impact of these factors on the population fluctuation of
aphids. The results indicate that all predetermined abiotic factors (temperature, relative
humidity and rainfall) had significant effects on aphid population. The maximum and
minimum temperatures both showed positive correlation with aphid population while relative
humidity and rainfall showed negative correlation. Aphid population, more or less, was
observed on canola between lower and upper most range of temperature during the study
period (17-30C). From the results it is concluded that aphids survive in a narrow range of
temperature. When temperature decreases and crosses the lower limits aphid’s population
also decreases, however, when temperature shows an increase from lower limits to higher
limits the aphid population also increases but when temperature crosses the higher limits
aphids population shows abrupt decrease. Our findings are similar with Srivastav et al. (1995),
who reported that a range of maximum temperature of (15.8-24.7 0C) and relative humidity (61-65%)
prevailing in February was favorable for aphid multiplication. Bishoni et al. (1992) however, studied
the effect of temperatures, relative humidity and cloud cover on the infestation by Lipaphis erysimi.
He found that temperatures in the range of 10-13.5 0C and 72-85% RH was optimal for population
build up of aphids. An increase in cloudiness resulted in increased population of aphid. These results
also confirmed the results of the present findings.
4.5 BIOLOGY OF APHIDS (BREVICORYNE BRASSICAE, MYZUS PERSICAE AND LIPAPHIS ERYSIMI) UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEMS (SYNTHETIC FERTILIZERS AND FARMYARD MANURE APLLICATION)
The experiment was conducted to determine the biology of aphids on canola grown
under organic farming (farmyard manure application) and conventional (synthetic fertilizer)
at the farm of University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. In this experiment, adult aphids were
released under side of leaves and covered with clip cages. Next day all aphids were removed
from the leaves except one nymph. Life history of that nymph was studied until its death. The
relatively susceptible genotype ‘Oscar’ was used for this study. The results are presented in
Tables 5.1 and 5.2. Following life history parameters were studied, details of which are given
below.
4.5.1 NYMPHAL LONGEVITY
Nymph longevity of aphid species (B. brassicae, M. persicae and L. erysimi) among
farming systems was not statistically significant. It was however, noted that nymphal
longevity in cabbage aphid (4.8 days) was slightly higher than other two species. Green
peach aphid (4.30 days) and mustard aphid (4.30 days) had same longevity under both
systems of farming. Exactly similar results were obtained during 2nd year of study.
4.5.2 ADULT LONGEVITY
The result revealed that adult longevity of aphid on canola grown under organic
(farmyard manure) and conventional farming system (synthetic fertilizer) was statistically
significant among different species studied. Green peach aphid has maximum adult longevity
(11.10 days) on both systems of farmings followed by cabbage aphid (9.6 days) under
synthetic fertilizer application. In contrast, cabbage aphid under organic farming showed
minimum adult longevity (8.1) days. The adult longevity of the mustard aphid was same on
organic and convetional farmings systems.
The results revealed that the application of different farming systems significantly
affected the number of nymphs produced by female. Canola grown under synthetic fertilizer
application received the maximum number of nymphs (27.4-68.9 nymphs) followed by the
plot treated with farmyard manure application (13.6-43.4). Among the species the green
peach aphid produces maximum numbers of aphids under synthetic fertilizer application
(78.9 nymphs), while cabbage aphid produce maximum under farmyard manure application
(42 nymphs).
4.5.4 PRE REPRODUCTIVE PERIOD
Data regarding the prereproductive period of aphid’s species in canola revealed that
there was no significant difference among species under either farming systems during the 1st
year of studies. However during the 2nd year farmings system had slighty affected the pre-
reproductive period of aphids. The cabbage aphid showed slightly more pre-reproductive
period under farmyard manure application as compared to other two species.
4.5.5 REPRODUCTIVE PERIOD
The data regarding the reproductive period of aphid species studied on canola grown
under organic and conventional farming systems revealed that green peach aphid showed
maximum reproductive period under both farming systems studied (9 and 8.8 days). The
Cabbage and mustard aphid had similar reproductive period on the canola grown on both
farming systems. While during 2nd year of studies the reproductive period of cabbage aphid
was observed more in synthetic fertilizers applicationas compared with farmyard manure
application.
4.5.6 POST REPRODUCTIVE PERIOD
During 1st year of studies the pre-reproductive period was found to be slightly more in
cabbage aphid under farmyard manure application as compared with synthetic fertilizer
application, while same was similar in the rest of the two species under both systems of
farmings.
4.5.7 TOTAL LIFE SPAN
The result revealed that the lifespan of green peach aphid was longer than that in the
other species studied (26.5 days) under organic and conventional farmings. The lifespan of
cabbage aphid nder s nthetic fertili er application as longer than the farm ard man re
trend was observed during the 2nd year of studies.
91
Table 5.1 Mean comparison of data regarding the biology of canola aphids on different farming systems during 2010
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD test, at α = 0.05. FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application
Nymphal
Longevity
Adult
Longevity
Average nymphs
/adult
Pre
reproductive
Period
Reproductive
Period
Post
reproductive
Period
Total life
Span
FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2
Cabbage
Aphid
4.8±0.5a 4.7±1.2a 9.4±1.07 b 8.10±0.8c 64.0±5.7b 47.7±5.6c 1.7±0.5a 1.5±0.5a 6.1±0.9b 5.5±1.08b
1.2±0.7ab 1.6±0.7a 23.7±1.5b 21.0±1.2c
Green
Peach
Aphid
4.3±0.2a 4.3±0.2a 11.1±0.7a 11.1±0.5a 78.9±2.9a 42.1±2.8cd 1.3±0.2a 1.5±0.3a 9.0±0.8a 8.8±0.7 a 0.8±0.3 b 0.8±0.4b 26.5±1.5a 26.5±1.1a
Mustard
Aphid
4.3±0.2a 4.3±0.2a 8.8±0.4bc 8.6±0.3bc 37.0±2.9d 29.1±2.3 e 1.5±0.3a 1.3±0.2a 6.5±0.3b 6.7±0.6 b 0.8±0.4 b 0.7±0.4b 21.9±2.9bc 21.5±0.8bc
LSD 0.7116 1.2664 6.9635 0.4288 1.4307 0.6451 2.3857
92
Table 5.2 Mean comparison of data regarding the biology of canola aphids on different farming systems during 2011
Nymphal
Longevity
Adult
Longevity
Average nymphs
/adult
Pre
reproductive
Period
Reproductive
Period
Post
reproductive
Period
Total life
Span
FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2
Cabbage
Aphid
4.2±0.4a 4.3±0.4a
9.6±0.4ab 9.0±0.6 b 68.9±3.6a 43.4±1.9 b 1.3±0.3ab 1.6±0.3 a 7.3±0.7a 5.9±0.5 b 1.30±0.4a 1.5±0.7 a 23.5±0.3ab 22.9±0.6b
Green
Peach
Aphid
4.3±0.2a 4.4±0.3a
9.9±0.4 a 9.9±0.4a 71.7±3.5 a 36.4±3 c 1.5±0.3ab 1.3±0.2ab 7.0±0.4a 7.7±00.5a 1.40±0.3a 1.0±0.5ab 24.1±1 a 24.2±0.7a
Mustard
Aphid
4.1±0.3a 4.3±0.2a
6.8±0.5 c
7.0±0.4c
27.4±3.7d
13.6±1.7e
1.5±0.3ab 1.1±0.18b 4.3±0.3c 5.5±0.6b 1.0±0.5ab 0.5±0.3b 17.9±0.9c 18.7±0.7c
LSD 0.5612 0.7297 4.8124 0.4416 0.8459 0.6175 1.1951
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD test, at α = 0.05. FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application
93
4.5.8 DISCUSSION
A comprehensive knowledge of the effects of farming systems through host plants on
the biology of insect pests is of paramount importance for understanding the population
dyanamics of insect pests and devising effective pest management program (Mirmohammad
et al., 2009). Nutritional value of and secondary chemical compounds in host plants, which
affects the herbivory and biology of insect pests depend on the farming system in which the
plants are sown and grown (Slansky and Feeny 1977, Norris and Kogan 1980). The results
of present studies exhibited that life history parameters were affected by the farming systems.
The nymph longevity of all the aphid’s species remained unaffected on canola grown under
organic and inorganic farming systems, however adult longevity was slightly more affected
in green peach aphid as compared to other species in both farming systems studied. The
different farming system also affected the number of nymphs produced per adult. It was
noted that more nymphs were produced on canola grown under synthetic fertilizer
applicationas compared with farmyard manure application in all tested species. The reason
behind this variation may be nutrititional value of the fertilizer application as compared to
organic farming system. Accordng to Staley et al., (2010), B. brassicae was most abundant in
the fertilizer treatment due to more production of nymphs and less abundant in organic
treatments due to less production of nymphal population. The present studies also show that
green peach aphid produce maximum nymphs followed by cabbage aphids and mustard
aphids in fertilizer treatments. The pre- and post-reproductive period is not affected by
farming system in all species studied. Moreover the reproductive period is also not affected
by the farming systems however it is different among species. The green peach aphid has
maximum reproductive period followed by the cabbage aphid and the mustard aphid, both
having similar reproductive periods. Post reproductive period is comparatively more in
cabbage aphid and similar in rest of both species. In green peach aphid maximum lifespan
was observed similar in both systems of farmings, while the cabbage aphid produces more
nymphs in synthetic fertilizer applicationas compared to farmyard manure application. The
findings of the present field studies are contradictory with those of Mirmohammadi (2009)
and Razzaq (2011), who studied the aphids’ biology under lab conditions. No information
exactly on the same line is availale in the literature reviewed.
94
SECTIONVI
4.6 DETERMINATION OF YIELD LOSSES, CAUSED BY APHIDS IN CANOLA UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEMS (SYNTHETIC FERTILIZERS AND FARMYARD MANURE APPLICATION)
The study was conducted to determine the losses in yield and yield components
caused by aphids in canola crop under organic and non organic systems of farming. Two
different genotypes one relatively resistant ‘‘Rainbow’’ and other relatively susceptible
‘Oscar’ were used for this purpose. The plant characters like plant height, no. of
branches/plant, no. of pods/plant, no. of seed/pod, thousand seed weight and yield/plot were
studied on both of varieties during 2009 and 2010. The % losses in yield and yield
component are discussed here in.
4.6.1 PLANT HEIGHT
Data regarding plant height and % losses in plant height are presented in the Table
16.1. As evident from results, that there was significant difference among varieties between
treated and untreated plots. Maximum plant height was obtained on plot sprayed with
carbosulfan in both tested genotypes and in all tested farming systems. Under synthetic
fertilizer application, however the genotype ‘Oscar’ showed maximum plant height (163.6
cm) while‘‘Rainbow’’ (161.3 cm) plant height. In case of farmyard manure application and
control treatment, ‘Oscar’ again showed maximum plant height (155 cm) under sprayed
conditions followed by ‘Rainbow’ (135.6 cm). The minimum plant height was recorded in
the genotype ‘‘Rainbow’’under unsprayed condition (100 cm). The data regarding the loss in
plant height showed that maximum loss was recorded in ‘‘Rainbow’’grown under farmyard
manure application and synthetic fertilizer application (19% and 18%, respectively).
However it was noted that minimum loss in plant height was observed in genotypes ‘Oscar’
and ‘‘Rainbow’ (7 and 9%, respectively) under control conditions.
4.6.2 NUMBER OF BRANCHES
Data regarding number of branches are presented in the Table 6.2. According to the
results maximum numbers of branches were observed in the plots which were sprayed and
grown by synthetic fertilizer application (17.0) followed by the plots grown under farmyard
manure application (13.1) and control (12.6). It was found that application of treatment
95
significantly affected the number of branches in all tested systems of farming. Data regarding
% loss in number of branches per plant revealed that maximum loss was observed in the
genotype ‘Oscar’ under both farmyard manure and synthetic fertilizer application (16%).
Overall, it was noted that the genotype ‘Oscar’ was affected much by aphid population as
compared to ‘‘Rainbow.’’
96
Table 6.1 Mean comparison of data regarding % losses in plant height under different farming systems
2009
(LSD =12.9)
2010
(LSD =13.0)
FS1 FS2 FS3 FS1 FS2 FS3
‘Rainbow’ Unsprayed 131.6 bc 113.6de 100.3 f 134.3 bc 116.3def 103.33f
Sprayed 161.3 a 135.6bc 110.0 ef 163.6 a 138.33bc 112.3 ef
% loss 18 16 9 17 15 8
Oscar Unsprayed 163.6 a 125.3cd 107.3 ef 166.3 a 127.65cd 109.6 ef
Sprayed 139.3 b 155.3 a 115.6 de 131.6 b 158.33 a 118.0de
% loss 14 19 7 20 19 7
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD test, at α = 0.05. FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control Table 6.2 Mean comparison of data regarding% losses in number of branches
under different farming systems 2009
(LSD=1.60)
2010
(LSD=1.92)
FS1 FS2 FS3 FS1 FS2 FS3
‘Rainbow’ Unsprayed 12.3 cd 10.0 f 10.3 f 14.0 c 11.0 e 10.3 e
Sprayed 17.0 a 13.3 bc 12.6 cd 19.0 a 14.5 bc 14.5 bc
% loss 27 24 18 26 24 28.7
Oscar Unsprayed 11.6 de 10.0 ef 10.6 ef 13.3 cd 12.0 de 11.0 e
Sprayed 18.0 a 14.3 b 19.6 a 19.0 a 16.0 b
% loss 35 16.0 a 25 32 36 31
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD test, at α = 0.05. FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
97
4.6.3 NUMBER OF PODS PER PLANT
Data regarding number of pods and % losses in pods are presented in the Table 6.3.
The average numbers of pods were found significant among spayed, unsprayed,
grown under fertilizer, as well as farmyard manure and control conditions. However the
genotype ‘Oscar’ showed more loss in pod as compared to ‘‘Rainbow’’and the farming
system having synthetic fertilizer application showed more loss as compared to farmyard
manure and control conditions. The minimum loss in number of pod was observed in plot
grown under control conditions.
4.6.4 AVERAGE NUMBER OF SEED PER POD
Data regarding average seed per pod and % losses in average seeds per pod are
presented in the Table 6.4. The data regarding average number of seed per pod was
statistically similar
4.6.5 THOUSAND SEED WEIGHT
Data regarding plant height and percent losses in plant height is presented in the
Table 6.5. The data pertaining to % loss in thousand weights revealed that maximum loss
was observed in the genotype ‘Oscar’ grown under fertilizer application.
4.6.6 YIELD LOSS/PLOT
Data regarding percent yield losses are presented in the Table 6.6. Application of
insecticides (Carbosulfan) significantly affected yield loss under different farming systems.
Maximum yield loss was observed on canola grown under synthetic fertilizer application
followed by farmyard manure and control conditions. In the case of genotypes maximum
yield loss was observed in genotypes in all three systems of farming.
98
Table 6.3 Mean comparison of data regarding % losses in average number of pods/plant under different farming systems
2009
(LSD=3.84)
2010
(LSD=3.70)
Fertilizer Fym control Fertilizer Fym control
‘Rainbow’ Unsprayed 22.0 a 20 bc 10.3 d 23.7 a 21.7 bc 11.7 d
Sprayed 24.7 a 22.0 ab 11.7 d 26.0 a 24.0 ab 13.7d
% loss 11 9 13 11.5 12 14
Oscar Unsprayed 18.0 c 19 bc 12.0 d 19.3 c 20.5 bc 12.3 d
Sprayed 25.3 a 24.6 a 14.3 d 26.7 a 26.0 a 14.7 d
% loss 29 21 16 27 21 16
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD test, at α = 0.05. FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control Table 6.4 Mean comparison of data regarding % losses in Average seed/pod under
different farming systems 2009
(LSD=20.9)
2010
(20.8)
Fertilizer Fym contro
l
Fertilize
r
Fym control
‘Rainbow
’
Unspraye
d
112.33cd
e
110.0cd
e
97.7 e 125.3 cde 112.3cd
e
100.0 e
Sprayed 145 a 145 ab 101.0 de 165.0 a 147.5ab 100.0 e
% loss 22 24 11 24 23 12.5
Oscar Unspraye
d
115.0 bc
120.3
cd
111.7 cde 128.0 bc 122.3cd 103.6de
Sprayed 150.33a 161.6 a 114.0 cde 153.0 a 163.5 a 116.3cd
e
% loss 23 25 12 16 25 8.2
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD test, at α = 0.05.
99
FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
100
Table 6.5 Mean comparison of data regarding % losses in thousand seed weight under different farming systems
2009
(LSD=1.1)**
2010
(LSD= 1.2)**
Fertilizer Fym control Fertilizer Fym control
‘Rainbow’ Unsprayed 5.3 bc 5.3 bc 4.0 c 6.0 bc 6.0 bc 5.3 c
Sprayed 7.3 a 6.3 ab 5.0 c 8.0 a 7.0 ab 5.8 bc
% loss 27 15 20 20 14 8
Oscar Unsprayed 4.50 c 4.6 c 4.0 c 5.6 c 5.5 c 4.9 c
Sprayed 7.33 a 6.0 a 4.75 c 8.08 a 7.55 a 5.1 c
% loss 35 23 15 29 27 3
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD test, at α = 0.05. FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control Table 6.6 Mean comparison of data regarding% losses in yield under different farming systems 2009
(LSD= 0.23)
2010
(LSD= 0.25)
Fertilizer Fym control Fertilizer Fym control
‘Rainbow’ Unsprayed 1.43 d 1.26de 1.16 e 1.9 d 1.7 ef 1.7 f
Sprayed 3.3 a 2.30 b 1.9 c 3.8 a 2.96 b 2.63 c
% loss 56 45 38 50 40.8 35
Oscar Unsprayed 1.46 d 1.30 d 1.4 d 1.8 d 1.9 e 1.6 f
Sprayed 4.3 c 2.63 b 2.60 b 4.45 a 3.1 b 2.7 c
% loss 66 50 44 59 38.7 39
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD test, at α = 0.05. FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application; FS3= control
101
4.6.7 DISCUSSION
The results revealed that farming systems had a significant effect on yield component
of canola crop. A variation was also found in yield among the tested genotypes. ‘Oscar’
proved to be a high yielding variety in spite of its maximum yield loss as compared to
‘rainbow’. This proves that ‘Oscar’ is more tolerant variety than others. Maximum plant
height was observed in the synthetic fertilizer applicationas compared with other two farming
systems. This variation is attributed to more availibility of nutrints to plants in the fertilizer
treatment. In case of number of branches maximum loss appeared in farmyard manure on
genotype ‘Oscar’ and slightly less loss was observed in fertilizer application, however
minimum loss was observed in control conditions. Loss in number of pods was also affected
by the farming system. More pods were observed in synthetic fertilizer application in spite of
more pod loss. Thousand seed weight and other yield component behaved similarly like other
component. Maximum yield loss was observed in canola grown under synthetic fertilizer
application followed by farmyard manure and control. In the control conditions minimum
yield loss was observed. All of the results are partially similar with Shah et al. (2008); Malik
and Deen (1998) and Muhammad Razaq et al. (2011) who reported that application of
insecticides against aphids influence the yield and yield components (plant height, number
branches, number of pods per plant and average seed per pod). They also observed that with
the increase of population of aphids yield and yield component loss increases.
102
SECTIONVII
4.7.1 EFFICACY SELECTIVE OF INSECTICIDES
The experiment was conducted at the farm of the University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad. The effectiveness of insecticide was tested against aphids during 2010 and 2011.
The data were recorded 24, 48, 72 and 168 hours after the spraying of insecticides. Data
regarding efficacy of insecticides are presented in the Tables 7.1 and 7.2.
4.7.1.1 PERCENT REDUCTION IN POPULATION OF APHIDS 24 HOURS AFTER APPLICATION
During the 1st year of study the results revealed that 24 hours after application of
Advantage® (carbosulfan) treatment showed highest mortality of aphids (45%) followed by
Mospilon® (Acetamiprid) which showed 39.7% mortality, while profenophos produced the
lowest mortality (16.6%) while the remaining insecticides i.e. imidacloprid and Pyramid®
(nitempyaram) showed intermediate results and were statistically similar with each other.
During 2nd the year of studies same trend was found and Advantage® proved highly effective
with 42.3% mortality and profenophos with least mortality (15.66%).
4.7.1.2 PERCENT REDUCTION IN POPULATION OF APHIDS 48 HOURS AFTER APPLICATION
During 1st year of study, the maximum mortality of aphids was recorded in the plot
treated with Advantage® (74%). Plots treated with Mospilon® (acetamiprid) and imidacloprid
were not significantly different from each other and neither from plots treated with Pyramid®
(nitempyaram) and profenophos. Same trend was observed during 2nd year of studies.
4.7.1.3 PERCENT REDUCTION IN POPULATION OF APHIDS 72 HOURS AFTER APPLICATION
Data regarding efficacy of insecticides 72 hours after application showed that all
insecticides perform well against aphids. It was noted that Mospilon® showed highest
mortality while the insecticides imidacloprid and profenophos showed minimum mortality
(82.6, 81.3%, respectively.
4.7.1.4 PERCENT REDUCTION IN POPULATION OF APHIDS 168 HOURS AFTER APPLICATION
Mospilon® and Advantage® again proved to be highly effective against aphids with
93% mortality followed by Pyramid® with 90% mortality; while imidacloprid and
103
profenophos showed minimum mortality of 81% and 83%, respectively. During 2nd year of
studies, the insecticide Mospilon® showed highest mortality followed by Advantage®,
profenophos, Pyramid® and imidacloprid.
104
Table 7.1 Mean comparison of data regarding efficacy of different insecticides against aphids on canola crop during 2010
INSECTICIDES DOSE OF
INSECTICIDE
% MORTALITY OF APHID
AFTER
Trade
Name
common
Name
Dose/ 100 liter
of water
24
hours
48
hours
72
hours
168
hours
Advantage® Carbosulfan 500ml/acre 42.3 a 71.6 a 97.6 a 92.3 ab
Mospilon® Acetamiprid 125g/acre 38.0 b 61.3 b 97.0 a 94.6 a
Imidacloprid® Imidacloprid 250ml/acre 25.0 d 61.0 b 82.6 c 81.0 c
Pyramids® Nitenpyram 200ml/acre 29.3 c 51.6 d 92.6 b 89.0 c
Curacron® Profenofos 500ml/acre 15.6 e 55.6 c 81.3 c 82.0 b
control - 0.0 f 0.0 e 0.0 d 0.0 d
LSD 3.99 3.33 4.25 3.34
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD test, at α = 0.05. Table .7.2 Mean comparison of data regarding efficacy of insecticides against aphids
on canola crop during 2011 INSECTICIDES DOSE OF
INSECTICIDE
% MORTALITY OF APHID
AFTER
Trade
Name
common
Name
Dose/ 100 liter
of water
24
hours
48
hours
72
hours
168
hours
Advantage® Carbosulfan 500ml/acre 45.3 a 74. a 95 a 93 a
Mospilon® Acetamiprid 125g/acre 39.6 b 63.3 b 95.6 a 93.6 a
Imidacloprid® Imidacloprid 250ml/acre 26.3 c 62.6 b 82.6 b 81 c
Pyramids® Nitenpyram 200ml/acre 30.6 c 54 c 90.6 a 90 b
Curacron® Profenofos 500ml/acre 16.6 d 57.6 c 81.3 b 83.3 c
control - 0.0 e 0.0 d 0.0 c 0.0 d
LSD 5.58 4.61 5.3 2.96
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD test, at α = 0.05.
105
4.7.2 INTEGRATION OF VARIOUS CONTROL METHODS AGAINST APHIDS DURING 2010 AND 2011
The experiment was conducted at the farm of the University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad. The various control techniques were applied to canola crop against aphids and
data were recorded 24, 48, 72 and 168 hours after application.
4.7.2.1 Percent reduction in population of aphids 24 hour after application of different
treatments
The data regarding the population reduction of aphids 24 hour after the application of
treatment is presented in Table 7.3. The results revealed that various treatments were found
to be significantly different from each other regarding reduction in aphid’s population. The
treatment including blank spray alone or integration with biocontrol agents cause highest
population reduction in aphids during both years of the studies. There was no significant
difference among the systems. Maximum population reduction was observed in canola grown
through organic farming. The treatment C. carnea + coccinellid+blank water spray also
showed the highest population reduction similar to treatment blank spray. The treatment of
coccinellids and C. carnea alone was not significantly different from others against aphid
under either system of farmings.
4.7.2.2 Percent reduction in population of aphids 48 hours after application of different treatments
The data regarding the population reduction of aphids 48 hours after the application
of treatments are presented in the Table 7.4. The treatment C. carnea + coccinellid + Blank
water showed the highest population reduction of aphids under both farmings systems
followed by the treatment blank spray with 63 and 65% mortality under organic and
inorganic farming systems. The treatment chrysoperla+coccinellid again showed same trend
toward farming systems but slightly more reduction in aphid population was observed under
organic farming. The minimum mortality was observed under control treatment. The
coccinellid performed better with more population reduction than C. carnea.
4.7.2.3 Percent reduction in population of aphids 72 hours after application of treatment
The results pertaining to percent reduction in aphids 72 hours after application of
treatments are presented in Table 7.5. The results revealed that the treatment C. carnea +
coccinellid + blank water spray was the most effective with 91-92% mortality under both
106
systems of farming. This was followed by the treatment C. carnea + coccinellid with 65-66%
reduction. The blank spray treatment produced 52% mortality while, the coccinellid
treatment produced 44-52% reduction. The coccinellid treatment produced higher mortality
on the canola crop grown under organic farming. Similar trend in results was observed
during 2nd year of the study.
4.7.2.4 Percent reduction in population of aphids 168 hours after application of different treatments
The data regarding the population reduction of aphids 168 hours after the application
of treatment are presented in the Table 7.6. The treatment C. carnea + coccinellid + blank
water spray produced highest aphid mortality under both farming systems studied. This
treatmement produced slightly higher population reduction in the canola crop grown under
organic farming. The C. carnea + coccinellid treatment produced the 2nd highest aphid
mortality i.e. 75-76% followed by the coccinellid treatment which produced the 51-53%
mortality.
107
Table 7.3 Means comparison of data regarding population reduction in aphids 24
hours after the application of treatment % REDUCTION IN APHIDS
2010 2011 AVERAGE
Treatments Dose/plot FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2
control - 1 0.0 c 1 0.0 c 0.3 b 0.4 b 0.2 c 0.20 c
Blank Water Spray - 70.7 a 73.3 a 70.3 a 71.5 a 70.5 a 72.4 a
Chrysoperla
Carnea
25000
eggs/plot
1.4 bc 2.3 bc 1.2 b 1.5 b 1.3 c 1.9 bc
coccinellid 2000
grubs/plot
4.3 bc 5.3 bc 4.5 b 15.8 b 4.4 bc 10.6 b
Chrysoperla
Carnea +
coccinellid
25000
eggs/plot
+
100 grubs/plot
6.7 b 7.2 b 6.5 b 6.8 b 6.5 bc 6.9 bc
Chrysoperla
Carnea +
coccinellid
+
Blank spray
25000
eggs/plot
+
2000
grubs/plot
+
Water spray
69.7 a 71.0 a 69.3 a 70.3 a 69.5 a 70.7 a
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD test, at α = 0.05. FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application
108
Table 7.4 Means comparison of data regarding population reduction in aphids 48 hours after the application of treatment
% REDUCTION IN APHIDS
2010 2011 AVERAGE
Treatments Dose/plot FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2
control - 0.00 e 0.3 e 0.3 g 0.4 g 0.2 g 0.4 g
Blank Water Spray - 52.3 c 54.0 c 52.6 c 55.0 c 52.5 c 54.5 c
Chrysoperla
Carnea
25000
eggs/plot
36.3 d 38.3 d 34.0 f 36.0ef 35.2 f 37.2ef
coccinellid 2000
grubs/plot
44.3 cd 52.3 c 43.3de 44.3 d 43.8de 48.3cd
Chrysoperla
Carnea +
coccinellid
25000
eggs/plot
+
100 grubs/plot
65.3 b 66.7 b 64.0 b 64.3 b 64.7 b 65.5 b
Chrysoperla
Carnea +
coccinellid
+
Blank spray
25000
eggs/plot
+
2000
grubs/plot
+
Water spray
91.7 a 92.3 a 90.3 a 91.5 a 91.0 a 91.9 a
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD test, at α = 0.05. FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application
109
Table 7.5 Means comparison of data regarding population reduction in aphids 72 hours after the application of treatment
% REDUCTION IN APHIDS
2010 2011 AVERAGE
Treatments Dose/plot FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2
control - 0.00 e 0.3 e 0.3 g 0.4 g 0.2 g 0.4 g
Blank Water Spray - 52.3 c 54.0 c 52.6 c 55.0 c 52.5 c 54.5 c
Chrysoperla
Carnea
25000
eggs/plot
36.3 d 38.3 d 34.0 f 36.0ef 35.2 f 37.2ef
coccinellid 2000
grubs/plot
44.3 cd 52.3 c 43.3de 44.3 d 43.8de 48.3cd
Chrysoperla
Carnea +
coccinellid
25000
eggs/plot
+
100 grubs/plot
65.3 b 66.7 b 64.0 b 64.3 b 64.7 b 65.5 b
Chrysoperla
Carnea +
coccinellid
+
Blank spray
25000
eggs/plot
+
2000
grubs/plot
+
Water spray
91.7 a 92.3 a 90.3 a 91.5 a 91.0 a 91.9 a
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD test, at α = 0.05. FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application
110
Table 7.6 Means comparison of data regarding population reduction in aphids 168 hours after the application of treatment
% REDUCTION IN APHIDS
2010 2011 AVERAGE
Treatments Dose/plot FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2
control - 2.5 g 3.7 g 2.2 f 2.4 f 2.4 f 3.1 f
Blank Water Spray - 19.7 f 22.0 f 19.7 e 21.3 e 19.7 e 21.7 e
Chrysoperla
Carnea
25000
eggs/plot
43.3 e 45.0de 42.3 d 44.2 d 42.8 d 44.6 d
coccinellid 2000
grubs/plot
51.7 cd 53.7 c 51.0 c 52.3 c 51.3 c 53.0 c
Chrysoperla
Carnea +
coccinellid
25000
eggs/plot
+
100 grubs/plot
75.6 b 77 b 75.3 b 76.2 b
75.5b 76.6 b
Chrysoperla
Carnea +
coccinellid
+
Blank spray
25000
eggs/plot
+
2000
grubs/plot
+
Water spray
92.3 a 93.7 a 91.3 a 92.3 a 91.8 a 93.0 a
Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by Tukey’s HSD test, at α = 0.05. FS1=Fertilizer application; FS2= Farmyard manure application
111
4.7.3 YIELD AND COST BENEFIT RATIO OF DIFFERENT TREATMENTS UNDER ORGANIC (FARMYARD MANURE APPLICATION) AND INORGANIC (SYNTHETIC FERTILIZER APPLICATION) FARMING SYSTEM
A higher yield was produced under inorganic farming system in each treatment as
compared to organic farming system. A nonsignificant variation in yield was observed
between years in each treatment for same farming system. Maximum yield was obtained
under inorganic farming system where C. carnea, coccinellids and blank water spray were
integrated (3161 kg/hectare). Application of blank water spray under inorganic farming
system also produced noticeable yield (2568 kg/hectare). A nominal variation in cost-benefit-
ratio (CBR) was observed between the years for same farming system in each treatment.
However, a significant variation in CBR was produced between farming systems in each
treatment. The CBR was higher in organic (farmyard manure application) than inorganic
(synthetic fertilizer application) farming system. The highest CBR (10.36:1) was attained
under organic (farmyard manure application) where blank water spray was applied on the
canola crop. This was followed by CBR 4.02:1 that was attained when C. carnea,
coccinellids and blank water spray were integrated under organic (farmyard manure
application).
CALCULATION OF COST BENEFIT RATIO ON PER ACRE BASIS
Cost on blank water spray
Total labor cost on blank water spray = 250 Rs.
Cost on release of C. carnea
Price of one card of C. carnea eggs = 10 Rs.
Total cards of C. carnea eggs used per acre = 250 Rs.
Total cost on purchase of cards of C. carnea = 250 × 10 = 2500 Rs.
Labor cost on installation of cards = 100 Rs/acre
Total cost = 2600 Rs./acre
Cost on collection and release of coccinellids
Total grubs of coccinellids used per acre = 20000 Rs.
Total labor cost on collection and release of 1000 coccinellids grubs = 250 Rs.
Total cost = 250 × 20 = 5000 Rs./acre
112
Cost of organic (Farmyard manure application) farming system
Price of FYM (Farmyard manure) per 40 kg = 20 Rs.
Amount of FYM used per acre = 181monds (7240 kg)
Cost of FYM = 181 × 20 = 3620 Rs./acre
Cost of inorganic (Synthetic fertilizer application) farming system
Price of one bag of DAP = 4300 Rs.
DAP used = 1 bag/acre
Cost of total DAP used = 4300 Rs./acre
Price of one bag of urea = 1800 Rs.
Urea used = 1 bag/acre
Cost of total urea used = 1800 Rs./acre
Price of one bag of potash = 1300 Rs.
Potash used = 1 bag/acre
Cost of total potash used = 1300 Rs./acre
Total cost = 4300 + 1800 + 1300 = 7400 Rs./acre
COST BENEFIT RATIO FOR T1 & FS1 (CONTROL + SYNTHETIC FERTILIZER APPLICATION) ON PER ACRE BASIS
Input cost = 7400 Rs./acre
Yield obtained in 2010 = 760 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2010 = 45 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2010 = 760 × 45 = 34200 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2010 = 34200 – 7400 = 26800 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2010 = 26800÷ 7400 = 3.62:1 (profit: cost)
Yield obtained in 2011 = 680 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2011 = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2011 = 680 × 50 = 34000 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2011 = 34000 – 7400 = 26600 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2011 = 26600 ÷ 7400 = 3.59:1 (profit: cost)
Average yield obtained = 720 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2011 = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained for average of two years = 720 × 50 = 36000 Rs./acre
113
Net profit (average of two years) = 36000 – 7400 = 28600 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio for average of two years = 28600 ÷ 7400 = 3.86:1 (profit: cost)
COST BENEFIT RATIO FOR T2 & FS1 (BLANK WATER SPRAY + SYNTHETIC FERTILIZER APPLICATION) ON PER ACRE BASIS
Input cost = 250 + 7400 = 7650 Rs./acre
Yield obtained in 2010 = 1040 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2010 = 45 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2010 = 1040 × 45 = 46800 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2010 = 46800 – 7650 = 39150 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2010 = 39150 ÷ 7650 = 5.11:1 (profit: cost)
Yield obtained in 2011 = 940 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2011 = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2011 = 940 × 50 = 47000 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2011 = 47000 – 7650 = 39350Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2011 = 39350 ÷ 7650 = 5.14:1 (profit: cost)
Average yield obtained = 990 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2011 = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained for average of two years = 990 × 50 = 49500 Rs./acre
Net profit (average of two years) = 49500 – 7650 = 41850 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio for average of two years = 41850 ÷ 7650 = 5.47:1 (profit: cost)
COST BENEFIT RATIO FOR T3 & FS1 (C. CARNEA + SYNTHETIC FERTILIZER APPLICATION) ON PER ACRE BASIS
Input cost = 2600 + 7400 = 10000 Rs./acre
Yield obtained in 2010 = 920 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2010 = 45 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2010 = 920 × 45 = 41400 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2010 = 41400 – 10000 = 31400 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2010 = 31400 ÷ 10000 = 3.14:1 (profit: cost)
Yield obtained in 2011 = 840 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2011 = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2011 = 840 × 50 = 42000 Rs./acre
114
Net profit in 2011 = 42000 – 10000 = 32000 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2011 = 32000 ÷ 10000 = 3.2:1 (profit: cost)
Average yield obtained = 880 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2011 = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained for average of two years = 880 × 50 = 44000 Rs./acre
Net profit (average of two years) = 44000 – 10000 = 43000 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio for average of two years = 34000 ÷ 10000 = 3.4:1 (profit: cost)
COST BENEFIT RATIO FOR T4 & FS1 (coCCINELLIDS + SYNTHETIC FERTILIZER APPLICATION) ON PER ACRE BASIS
Input cost = 5000 + 7400 = 12400 Rs./acre
Yield obtained in 2010 = 940 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2010 = 45 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2010 = 940 × 45 = 42300 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2010 = 42300 – 12400 = 29900 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2010 = 29900 ÷ 12400 = 2.41:1 (profit: cost)
Yield obtained in 2011 = 900 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2011 = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2011 = 900 × 50 = 45000 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2011 = 45000 – 12400 = 32600 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2011 = 32600 ÷ 12400 = 2.62:1 (profit: cost)
Yield obtained = 920 kg/acre
Price of canola = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained = 920 × 50 = 46000 Rs./acre
Net profit = 46000 – 12400 = 33600 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2010 = 33600 ÷ 12400 = 2.70:1 (profit: cost)
COST BENEFIT RATIO FOR T5 & FS1 (C. CARNEA + coCCINELLIDS + SYNTHETIC FERTILIZER APPLICATION) ON PER ACRE BASIS
Input cost = 2600 + 5000 + 7400 = 15000 Rs./acre
Yield obtained in 2010 = 960 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2010 = 45 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2010 = 960 × 45 = 43200 Rs./acre
115
Net profit in 2010 = 43200 – 15000 = 28200 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2010 = 28200 ÷ 15000 = 1.88:1 (profit: cost)
Yield obtained in 2011 = 940 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2011 = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2011 = 940 × 50 = 47000 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2011 = 47000 – 15000 = 32000 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2011 = 32000 ÷ 15000 = 2.13:1 (profit: cost)
Yield obtained = 950 kg/acre
Price of canola = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained = 950 × 50 = 47500 Rs./acre
Net profit = 47500 – 15000 = 32500 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2010 = 32500 ÷ 15000 = 2.16:1 (profit: cost)
COST BENEFIT RATIO FOR T6 & FS1 (WATER SPRAY + C. CARNEA + COCCINELLIDS + SYNTHETIC FERTILIZER APPLICATION) ON PER ACRE BASIS
Input cost =250 + 2600 + 5000 + 7400 = 15200 Rs./acre
Yield obtained in 2010 = 1280 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2010 = 45 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2010 = 1280 × 45 = 57600 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2010 = 57600 – 15200 = 42400 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2010 = 42400 ÷ 15200 = 2.78:1 (profit: cost)
Yield obtained in 2011 = 1240 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2011 = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2011 = 1240 × 50 = 62000 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2011 = 62000 – 15200 = 46800 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2011 = 46800 ÷ 15200 = 3.07:1 (profit: cost)
Yield obtained = 1260 kg/acre
Price of canola = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained = 1260 × 50 = 63000 Rs./acre
Net profit = 63000 – 15200 = 47800 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2010 = 47800 ÷ 15200 = 3.14:1 (profit: cost)
116
COST BENEFIT RATIO FOR T1 AND FS2 (CONTROL + FYM APPLICATION) ON PER ACRE BASIS
Input cost = 3620 Rs./acre
Yield obtained in 2010 = 560 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2010 = 45 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2010 = 560 × 45 = 25200 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2010 = 25200 – 3620 = 21580 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2010 = 21580÷ 3620 = 5.96:1 (profit: cost)
Yield obtained in 2011 = 600 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2011 = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2011 = 600 × 50 = 30000 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2011 = 30000 – 3620 = 26380 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2011 = 26380 ÷ 3620 = 7.28:1 (profit: cost)
Average yield obtained = 580 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2011 = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained for average of two years = 580 × 50 = 29000 Rs./acre
Net profit (average of two years) = 29000 – 3620 = 25380 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio for average of two years = 25380 ÷ 3620 = 7.01:1 (profit: cost)
COST BENEFIT RATIO FOR T2 AND FS2 (BLANK WATER SPRAY + FYM APPLICATION) ON PER ACRE BASIS
Input cost = 250 + 3620 = 3870 Rs./acre
Yield obtained in 2010 = 940 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2010 = 45 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2010 = 940 × 45 = 42300 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2010 = 42300 – 3870 = 38430 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2010 = 38430 ÷ 3870 = 9.93:1 (profit: cost)
Yield obtained in 2011 = 820 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2011 = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2011 = 820 × 50 = 41000 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2011 = 41000 – 3870 = 37130 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2011 = 37130 ÷ 3870 = 9.59:1 (profit: cost)
117
Average yield obtained = 880 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2011 = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained for average of two years = 880 × 50 = 44000 Rs./acre
Net profit (average of two years) = 44000 – 3870 = 40130 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio for average of two years = 40130 ÷ 3870 = 10.36:1 (profit: cost)
COST BENEFIT RATIO FOR T3 AND FS2 (C. CARNEA + FYM APPLICATION) ON PER ACRE BASIS
Input cost = 2600 + 3620 = 6320 Rs./acre
Yield obtained in 2010 = 780 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2010 = 45 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2010 = 780 × 45 = 35100 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2010 = 35100 – 6320 = 28780 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2010 = 28780 ÷ 6320 = 4.55:1 (profit: cost)
Yield obtained in 2011 = 760 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2011 = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2011 = 760 × 50 = 38000 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2011 = 38000 – 6320 = 31680 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2011 = 31680 ÷ 6320 = 5.01:1 (profit: cost)
Average yield obtained = 770 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2011 = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained for average of two years = 770 × 50 = 38500 Rs./acre
Net profit (average of two years) = 38500 – 6320 = 32180 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio for average of two years = 32180 ÷ 6320 = 5.09:1 (profit: cost)
COST BENEFIT RATIO FOR T4 AND FS2 (coCCINELLIDS + FYM APPLICATION) ON PER ACRE BASIS
Input cost = 5000 + 3620 = 8620 Rs./acre
Yield obtained in 2010 = 840 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2010 = 45 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2010 = 840 × 45 = 37800 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2010 = 37800 – 8620 = 29180 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2010 = 29180 ÷ 8620 = 3.38:1 (profit: cost)
118
Yield obtained in 2011 = 780 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2011 = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2011 = 780 × 50 = 39000 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2011 = 39000 – 8620 = 30380 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2011 = 30380 ÷ 8620 = 3.52:1 (profit: cost)
Yield obtained = 810 kg/acre
Price of canola = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained = 810 × 50 = 40500 Rs./acre
Net profit = 40500 – 8620 = 31880 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2010 = 31880 ÷ 8620 = 3.69:1 (profit: cost)
COST BENEFIT RATIO FOR T5 AND FS2 (C. CARNEA + coCCINELLIDS + FYM APPLICATION) ON PER ACRE BASIS
Input cost = 2600 + 5000 + 3620 = 11220 Rs./acre
Yield obtained in 2010 = 840 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2010 = 45 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2010 = 840 × 45 = 37800 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2010 = 37800 – 11220 = 26580 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2010 = 26580 ÷ 11220 = 2.36:1 (profit: cost)
Yield obtained in 2011 = 780 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2011 = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2011 = 780 × 50 = 39000 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2011 = 39000 – 11220 = 27780 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2011 = 27780 ÷ 11220 = 2.47:1 (profit: cost)
Yield obtained = 810 kg/acre
Price of canola = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained = 810 × 50 = 40500 Rs./acre
Net profit = 40500 – 11220 = 29280 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2010 = 29280 ÷ 11220 = 2.60:1 (profit: cost)
119
COST BENEFIT RATIO FOR T6 AND FS2 (WATER SPRAY + C. CARNEA + COCCINELLIDS + FYM APPLICATION) ON PER ACRE BASIS
Input cost =250 + 2600 + 5000 + 3620 = 11470 Rs./acre
Yield obtained in 2010 = 1166 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2010 = 45 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2010 = 1160 × 45 = 52200 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2010 = 52200 – 11470 = 40730 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2010 = 40730 ÷ 11470 = 3.55:1 (profit: cost)
Yield obtained in 2011 = 1140 kg/acre
Price of canola in 2011 = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained in 2011 = 1140 × 50 = 57000 Rs./acre
Net profit in 2011 = 57000 – 11470 = 45530 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2011 = 45530 ÷ 11470 = 3.96:1 (profit: cost)
Yield obtained = 1153 kg/acre
Price of canola = 50 Rs./kg
Income obtained = 1153 × 50 = 57600 Rs./acre
Net profit = 57600 – 11470 = 46180 Rs./acre
Cost benefit ratio in 2010 = 46180 ÷ 11470 = 4.02:1 (profit: cost)
120
Table 7.7 Cost benefit ratio of different treatments under organic (farmyard manure application) and inorganic (synthetic fertilizer application) farming system
COST-BENEFIT-RATIO (profit: cost)
2010 2011 AVERAGE
Treatments Dose/plot FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2
control - 3.62:1 5.96:1 3.59:1 7.28:1 3.86:1 7.01:
Blank Water Spray - 5.11:1 9.93:1 5.14:1 9.59:1 5.47:1 10.36:1
Chrysoperla
Carnea
25000 eggs/plot 3.14:1 4.55:1 3.20:1 5.01:1 3.40:1 5.09:1
coccinellid 2000 grubs/plot 2.41:1 3.38:1 2.62:1 3.52:1 2.70:1 3.69:1
Chrysoperla
Carnea +
coccinellid
25000 eggs/plot
+
100 grubs/plot
1.88:1 2.36:1 2.13:1 2.43:1 2.16:1 2.60:1
Chrysoperla
Carnea +
coccinellid
+
Blank spray
25000 eggs/plot
+
2000 grubs/plot
+
Water spray
2.78:1 3.55:1 3.07:1 3.96:1 3.14:1 4.02:1
121
Table 7.8 Yield (kg/acre) produced in different treatments under organic (farmyard manure application) and inorganic (synthetic fertilizer application) farming system
YIELD (kg/acre)
2010 2011 AVERAGE
Treatments Dose/plot FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2 FS1 FS2
control - 760e 560e 680f 600d 720e 580e
Blank Water Spray - 1040b 940b 940b 820b 990b 880b
Chrysoperla
Carnea
25000 eggs/plot 920d 780d 840e 760c 880d 770d
coccinellid 2000 grubs/plot 940cd 840c 900d 780c 920c 810c
Chrysoperla
Carnea +
coccinellid
25000 eggs/plot
+
100 grubs/plot
960c 840c 940c 780c 950c 810c
Chrysoperla
Carnea +
coccinellid
+
Blank spray
25000 eggs/plot
+
2000 grubs/plot
+
Water spray
1280a 1166a 1240a 1140a 1260a 1153
LSD value 32.6 43.7 29.5 19.6 37.9 27.4
122
4.7.4 DISCUSSION
4.7.4.1 Efficacy of Insecticide
The results revealed that the insecticide Advantage® proved to be highly effective
among all other insecticides which were tested against aphids. However it was noted that
highest mortality was recorded three days after application of each of the insecticides. The
performance of the evaluated insecticides decline in the following order: Advantage® >
Acetamiprid > Imidacloprid > Nitenpyram > Profenophos. These results are partially similar
to those of Farooq (2007) who reported 95% reduction in population of aphid by the
application of the insecticide Methomyl. These results are highly in confirmatory with those
of Khan and Begum (2005) who reported that Advantage and curacuran were very effective
insecticides against aphids exhibiting 12.8 and 19.3 aphis/leaf. The results of Dhaka et al.
(2009) that Acetamiprid and Imidacloprid proved better insecticides for the management of
mustard aphids also confirm the results of the present studies.
4.7.4.2 Integration of control Techniques
Different control techniques were tested against aphids to find out the most effective
and suitable technique. The results revealed that application of blank water spray abruptly
decreases the aphid’s population but population increases again with passage of time. This
may be due to the fact that blank water spray hits the aphids and they lose their grip on the
twigs and fall down on the plant. This decreases the population on the twigs. After some
interval, an increase in population of aphid in plots treated with blank water spray was
recorded. This increase may be attributed to the fact that aphids again crawl and comes to the
twigs. Our findings are similar to those of Farooq (2007), who reported that aphid population
reduced just after washing the plant with tap water, but only for short period of time after
which this treatment did not show good results. He further suggests that water spray
treatment may be effective if it is repeated according to population buildup.
The treatment involving chrysoperla + coccinellid + blank water spray showed
maximum population reduction of aphids but this was again found to be least effective after
48 hours. One week after the application of this treatment the however, aphid population
starts declining. This may be due to the fact that the population of released natural enemies
(Chrysopids and coccinellids) increases due to multiplication with passage of time, which
then reduces the aphid population. The treatment involving release of green lacewing and
123
coccinellid individually showed least reduction of aphids while combination of both
predators caused significant morality. However, it was noted that the predators performed
well one week after release. These results are in conformity with those of Malet et al. (1994),
who reported that the impact of the predators was consistent enough to make significant reductions in
the aphid’s population, Aphis gossypii on melon. Similarly, Scopes (1969) reported the C. carnea, a
voracious feeder, consumed about 250 aphids (Myzus persicae) per week and reduces aphids’
population significantly. Yield was higher in conventional farming than organic farming
system; but, the CBR was higher in organic farming systems than inorganic farming system.
The variation in the results of two farming systems can be explained on the basis of the
economics involved in the inputs. The cost involved in the application of synthetic fertilizer
is much more (approximately 2 times) than the cost of farmyard manure. A higher yield
under inorganic farming system may be attributed to the facts that the application of synthetic
fertilizer insures the quick availability of nutrient to the plants as compared to the farmyard
manure. These results cannot be compared or contradicted as no information on these lines is
available in the literature reviewed.
124
Chapter-5
SUMMARY
5.1 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF APHIDS AND THEIR NATURAL ENEMIES ON CANOLA IN PUNJAB, PAKISTAN
The survey study was conducted in four different localities of Punjab at two week
interval during 2009-2010. Samples were collected from canola field irrespective of variety
grown. Four different areas of Punjab (i.e. Faisalabad, Bahawalpur, Khanpur and D.G. Khan)
were selected for survey with following objectives: 1) to study population trends and species
composition of canola aphids in different areas of Punjab; 2) to investigate the natural
enemies feeding on canola aphids in areas mentioned above. The results are summarized
below:
Cabbage aphids and mustard aphid were recorded at four locations, while
green peach aphids were observed in Faisalabad and Khanpur
Population of B. brassicae was higher in all four locations as compared with
other two species of canola aphids
Maximum population of B. brassicae was found in Behawalpur district during
both years of study
The aphid M. persicae was only observed in Faisalabad and Khanpur but not
found in D.G.Khan and Bahawalpur
The L. erysimi was found in all four districts during both year of the study
The highest population of aphid species appeared on 30th February and 15th
March in all four selected district
Aphids’ population started in 2nd week of January, it increased gradually upto
March 15 then it showed a decline
5.2 ABUNDANCE OF APHIDS AND ITS NATURAL ENEMIES ON VARIOUS CANOLA GENOTYPES UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEMS
The experiment was carried out at the rsearch farm of University of Agriculture
Faisalabad in a random plot distribution with three treatments viz., fertilizers, farmyard
manure and control. To determine the degree of resistance, observations were started at the
seedling stage of crop and repeated every 7 days until crop maturity. Population fluctuation
125
of canola aphids were studied on canola genotypes under different farming system during
2009-2010. Population dynamics of aphids was studied on 11 different canola genotypes
with different dates of observation. The results are summarized below:
Three aphid species were recorded during studies i.e. B. brassicae, M. persicae and L.
erysimi.
The population of aphids was maximum on canola grown under fertilizer application
Population of Myzus persicae was maximum than other two species under fertilizer
application.
The 2nd highest population was found on canola grown under farmyard manure
application which is followed by control condition with no application
In case of performance of various canola genotypes, none of the genotype was found
free of aphid. All varieties showed aphid infestation
The genotypes like ‘cyclone’, ‘Shiralee’and ‘Oscar’ was found susceptible with
maximum population of aphids and ‘Hyola 401’ and ‘Rainbow’ were observed
relatively resistant with minimum population of aphids
The highest populations of all three aphid species were observed in 2nd week of
March under all three studied system of farming.
5.3 BIOCHEMICAL PLANT FACTOR
Variety, ‘Shiralee’ showed maximum percentage of nitrogen followed by
‘Cyclone’ and Ac-excel with minimum in Hyola-401
Maximum nitrogen was observed in fertilizer applied treatment followed by
farmyard manure and control
Highest phosphorous content was observed in genotypes ‘Shiralee’, ‘Cyclone’
and ‘Punjab sarsoon’, respectively under synthetic fertilizer applicationsystem
Phosphorus content was more in synthetic fertilizer applicationfollowed by
farmyard manure application and control.
Protein contents were higher under synthetic fertilizer applicationas compared
to other two farming system studied
Concentration of protein in different genotypes under different farming
systems revelaed that the highest concentration was observed in ‘Shiralee’ i.e.
14.06 followed by ‘cyclone’ i.e. 13.9 under fertilizer application.
126
Highest fat contents were observed in the genotype,’Rainbow’ grown under
synthetic fertilizer applicationi.e. 7.66 followed by ‘‘Rainbow’’grown under
farmyard manure application i.e. 7.0 % while minimum fat contents were
observed in the genotype Ac-excel grown under control condition i.e.2.0 %
Sodium concentration was not statistically different among the genotypes
The highest sodium content was observed in synthetic fertilizer
applicationfollowed by farmyard manure application while in control
treatment minimum sodium content was observed
Potassium concentration was found maximum under synthetic fertilizer
applicationfollowed by farmyard manure and control conditions. It was noted
that the genotypes behave significantly on different farming system
Fiber contents were found the maximum in the genotype ‘Shiralee’i.e. 21.3%.
While the genotypes ‘cyclone’ , ‘‘Rainbow’’and ‘‘‘Hyola’’ ’ were found
statistically at par regarding the fiber contents
5.4 EFFECT OF WEATHER FACTORS ON APHID POPULATION
The temperature had significant and positive correlation with aphid population
Rainfall and humidity had negative but nonsignificant correlation with aphids
population
Cummulative contribution of temperature, relative humidity and rainfall to
population fluctuation of aphid was found farming system dependent and
varied among farming system. These predictors cumulatively explained more
than 99% contribution in 2009 and 70-86% contribution in 2010 under
different farming system.
5.5 BIOLOGY OF APHIDS (BREVIcoRYNE BRASSICAE, MYZUS PERSICAE AND LIPAPHIS ERYSIMI) ON CANOLA GROWN UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEMS
The experiment was conducted to determine the biology of aphids on canola grown
under organic and inorganic farming system in farm of university of agriculture Faisalabad.
In this experiment adult aphids were released on under side of leaves and covered with clip
cages. Next day all aphids were removed from the leave except one nymph, life history of
that nymph was studied until its death.
127
Nymph longevity was same in the canola grown under organic and inorganic farming
systems
Adult longevity was found slightly more in the green peach aphid as compared with
other species
More nymph were produced on canola grown under synthetic fertilizer applicationas
compared with farmyard manure application in all tested species
Green peach aphid produced maximum nymphs followed by cabbage aphids and
mustard aphids respectively
The life history parameters like prereproductive, reproductive and post reproductive
period was not affected by farming systems in all species
In green peach aphid, maximum and statistically similar life span was observed in
both systems of farmings, while cabbage aphid produced more nymph in synthetic
fertilizer applicationas compared to farmyard manure application
5.6 THE YIELD LOSSES, CAUSED BY APHIDS, UNDER FIELD CONDITIONS, ON THE RESISTANT AND SUSCEPTIBLE GENOTYPES OF CANOLA ON BOTH SYSTEM OF FARMING
The study was conducted to determine the losses in yield and yield components
caused by aphids in canola crop under organic and inorganic system of farming. Two
different genotypes, one relatively resistant (‘‘Rainbow’’) and other relatively susceptible
were used for this purpose. The results are summarized below:
Farming system effected significantly the yield component of canola crop
Genotype Oscar’ proved to be tolerant as it exhibited high yield even experiencing
maximum yield loss as compared to ‘‘Rainbow’’
Maximum plant height was observed in the synthetic fertilizer applicationas
compared to other two farming system
Mmaximum loss in plant height was observed on canola grown under synthetic
fertilizer applicationfollowed by farmyard manure and control
In case of number of branches, maximum loss appeared in farmyard manure on
genotype ‘‘Oscar’’ and in synthetic fertilizer applicationslightly less loss was
observed, however, minimum loss was observed in control conditions
128
Loss in number of pods was also affected by the farming system. More pods were
observed in synthetic fertilizer applicationand more loss in fertilizer application
Thousand seed weight and other yield component were higher in fertilizer treatments
followed by organic treatement
5.7 INTEGRATION OF VARIOUS CONTROL METHODS AGAINST APHIDS DURING 2010 AND 2011
Different control techniques were tested against aphids to find out most effective and
suitable technique.
The treatments Advantage® and chrysoperla+coccinellid+blank water spray were
found highly effective against aphids on canola crop
Treatment chrysoperla and coccinellid showed least mortality of aphids
It was noted that the predator performed well one week after release and their efficacy
increased with passage of time
The treatment involving chrysoperla+coccinellid+blank water spray were found
statistically at par with insecticide 72 and 168 hour after application
The treatment which showed maximum increase in plant height, number of branches,
number of pod.plant, average seed per pod and yield after their application was spray
of Adavantage®. It was followed by the treatment involving
chrysoperla+cocinellid+blank water spray which also showed significant increase in
yield after their application
The combination effect of these both preadator was better than its individual effects
Higher and noticeable yield was obtained under inorganic farming system where C.
carnea, coccinellids and blank water spray were integrated or blank water spray was
applied. A higher CBR (10.36:1) was however, attained under organic (farmyard
manure application) where blank water spray was applied on the canola crop.
Integration of C. carnea, coccinellids and blank water spray under organic farming
system also produced a rationally higher CBR (4.02:1).
129
RECOMMENDATIONS
The present study was conducted on sustainable management of Aphids on canola
crop grown under organic and inorganic systems of farmings, in Punjab, Pakistan. The main
objective of study was to develop an economical and effective aphid management model by
determining population distribution of aphids and their natural enemies, screening of
relatively tolerant canola genotypes, identifying the sources of resistance by biochemical
bases, studying the biology of aphids, determining the efficacy of mechanical, biological and
chemical practices. From the above study following recommendation are made.
Aphids population was found maximum in Bahawalpur locality during survey study
therefore growing of canola crop in Bahawalpur should be discouraged, while in
Faisalabad maximum population of natural enemies which reduces the aphids
population significantly so growing of canola in Faisalabad should be encouraged.
From the study it was also observed that aphids population reach maximum in the
biggnening of March so early maturing genotypes should be used for canola
production which will escape the crop from late severe aphid attack.
The genotypes Cyclone, Shiralee and Oscar were found to be susceptible while the
genotypes Hyola-401 and Rainbow were found as relatively resistance. So the
growing of Hyola-401 and Rainbow genotypes should be encouraged. The high dose
of fertilizers application increases the pest attack against canola crop, while the use of
farmyard manure decreases the aphid’s attack, so its application should be
encouraged.
Weather conditions significantly affects the aphids population on canola, it was noted
that rainfall decreases the aphid populations, while high temperature has positive
effect on aphids population so for farmers should know about weather conditions
before going to the farming practices in canola field.
The insecticide Advantage® (Carbosulfan) was found highly effective among the
tested insecticides against aphids on canola. It showed maximum population
reduction against aphids. This insecticide should be used in integration with other
aphid management programme on canola.
Blank water spray is useful for the control of aphid on short term basis. The use of
natural enemies (coccinellid, chrysopid and syrphid fly) is important practice to
130
manage the pest. Best control can be obtained by the applying blank water spray and
natural enemies (C. carnea and coccinellids) combinely. In case of severe attack
farmer should use the chemical insecticides like Advantage® against aphids.
131
LITERATURE CITED
A.O.A.C., 1975. Official methods of analysis. 12 Ed. Benjamin. Franklin Station,
Washington, USA.34-48 pp.
Agarwala, B.K., 2007. Phenotypic plasticity in aphids (Homoptera: Insecta): components of
variation and causative factors. Curr. Sci., Agric., (Eds.):V.L. Chopra and S. Parkash.
Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi. 93: 308–313.
Aheer, G.M., A. Ali and M. Munir, 2008. Abiotic factors effect on population fluctuation of
alate aphids in wheat. J. Agric. Res., 46 : 367–371.
Aheer, G.M., K.J. Ahmad and A. Ali, 1994. Role of weather in fluctuating aphid density in
wheat crop. J. Agric. Res., 32: 295–301.
Ahmad, K.J., N.A. Malik, A.S. Akhtar and M. Hamza, 2006. Varietals resistance in wheat
varieties/lines and sowing date effect on aphid population. J. Agric. Res., 44: 215–
218.
Ahmed, N.E., H.O. Kanan, S. Inanaga, W. Q. Ma and Y. Sugimoto, 2001. Impact of
pesticide seed treatment on aphid control and yield of wheat in the Sudan. Crop
Protect., 20: 929–934.
Ali, A., 2001. The biochemical basis of resistance of some Chick pea cultivars against pod
borer (H. armigera). M.Sc. Thesis, Deptt. Agric. Entomol., Univ. Agric. Faisalabad,
Pakistan.
Ali, N. and M. Munir, 1984. Production Technology of Rape mustard in Pakistan. PARC,
Islamabad, Pakistan. 87-91. pp.
Anonymous, 2004. Economic survey of agriculture 2003–04, Government of Pakistan,
Finance Division, Economic Adviser’s Wing, Islamabad, Pakistan pp 13.
Anonymous, 2006. Economic survey of agriculture 2005–06, Government of Pakistan,
Finance Division, Economic Adviser’s Wing, Islamabad, Pakistan pp 13.
Anonymous, 2007. Economic survey of agriculture 2006–07, Government of Pakistan,
Finance Division, Economic Adviser’s Wing, Islamabad, Pakistan pp 13.
Anonymous, 2008. Economic survey of agriculture 2007–08, Government of Pakistan,
Finance Division, Economic Adviser’s Wing, Islamabad, Pakistan pp 13.
132
Anonymous, 2009. Economic survey of agriculture 2008–09, Government of Pakistan,
Finance Division, Economic Adviser’s Wing, Islamabad, Pakistan pp 13.
Anonymous, 2010. Economic survey of agriculture 2009–10, Government of Pakistan,
Finance Division, Economic Adviser’s Wing, Islamabad, Pakistan pp 13.
Anwar, M. and M. Shafique, 1999. Relative development of aphids on different Brassica
cultivars. Pak. J. Zool., 31: 357-359.
Armes, N.J., D.R. Jandhav and K.R. De Souza, 1996. A survey of insect resistance in
Helicoverpa armigera in Indian subcontinent. Bull. Entomol. Res., 86:499-514.
Ashdown, D., 1977. Life of Insects. Texas Tech. University, Lubbock, T.X, 135.
Ashfaq, M., J. Iqbal, A. Ali and U. Farooq, 2007. Role of abiotic factors in population
fluctuation of aphids on wheat. Pak. Entomol., 29: 17–122.
Aslam, M., 2005. Integrated Pest Management of aphids in canola. Final report, ALP Project,
PARC-Bhauddin Zakariya University, Multan. 62pp.
Aslam, M., M. Ahmad, Z. Islam and S. Anjum. 2002. Population of aphid, Lipaphis erysimi
(Kalt.) on canola (Brassica napus). Sci. Techno. Develop. Int. J., 21: 41-42.
Aslam, M., M. Razaq, Z. Islam and A. Shahzad, 2005. comparison of different canola
(Brassicanapus L.) varieties for resistance against cabbage aphid (Brevicoryne
brassicae L.). Int. J.Agric. Biol., 7: 781-782.
Avasthy, P.M. and A. Varma, 1979. The influence of row spacing and nitrogen on shoot
borer incidence in sugarcane. Ind. J. Entomol., 41: 387-388.
Bakhetia, D.K.C., K.S. Brar and B.S. Sekon, 1986. Bioefficacy of some insecticides for the
control of mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi on rapeseed and mustard. Ind. J. Entomol.,
48:137-143.
Bakhetia, D.R.C. 1990. Insect Pests in Oil Seed Brassicas. Ind. J. Oilseeds Res., 211-240.
Bakhetia, D.R.C. and B.S. Sekhon, 1989. Insect pest and their management in rapeseed and
mustard. J. Oilseeds Res., 6: 269-299.
Benrey, B. and R.F. Denno, 1997. The slow growth-high mortality hypothesis: A test using
the Cabbage Butterfly. Ecology, 78: 987-999.
133
Berlandier, F., 2004. Aphid Management in Canola Crops. Farmnote No. 45. Department of
Agriculture, South Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Bhutto, A.A., M.S. Wagan, , A.A. Shah, T. Hussain and M.A. Rustamani, 1997. Effects of
different fertilizer levels and plant spacing on incidence of yellow rice stem borer in
different rice cultivars. Proc. Pak. cong. Zool.,17: 239-243.
Bishoni, O.P., H. Singh and R. Singh, 1992. Incidence and multiplication of mustard aphid
(Lipaphis erysimi) in relation to meteorological variables. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 62:
710-712.
Biswas, G.C. and G.P. Das, 2000. Population dynamics of mustard aphid, Lipaphis
erysimi(kalt) ( Homoptera: Aphididae) in relation to weather parameters. Bang. J.
Entomol., 10: 15-22.
Blackman, K.P., V.F. Eastop, 2000. Aphids on the World's Crops: An Identification and
Information Guide. John Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Bugg, L.R., R.G. colfer, W.E. Chaney, H.A. Smith and J. cannon, 2008. Flower flies
(Syrphidae) and other biological control agent for aphids in vegeTable crops.
University of California, Division of Agricultural and Natural Resources,
Http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu publication 8285.
Bugg, L.R., R.G. colfer, W.E. Chaney, H.A. Smith and J. Canon, 2008. Flower flies
(Syrphidae) and other biological control agents for aphids in vegetable crop.
University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural resources.
http/anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu.
Butin, G.D. and P.L. Raymer, 1994. Pest status of aphids and other insects in winter canola
in Georgia, J. Econ. Entomol., 87: 1097-1104.
Chaboussou, F., 1982. Les Plantes Malades des Pesticides, Editions Debard, Paris.
Charlet, L.D., D. Olson and P.A. Glogoza, 2002. Biological control of insect and weed pests
in North Dakota Agriculture. North Dakota State Univ. Ext. Service, Fargo, North
Dakota. pp. 4-10.
Cohen, J. D., K. Dunbar and J. L. McClelland, 1990. On the control of automatic processes A
parallel distributed processing account of stroop effect. Physiol. Revi., 97:332-361.
134
Conrad, J., 2009. The Aphid Life Cycle, The Backyard Nature (2009) website
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science Crops and New Uses. (Eds.) J. Janick and A.
Whipkey ASHS Press, Alxenderia, VA.
Culliney, T.W. and D. Pimentel, 1986. Ecological Effects of organic agricultural practices on
insect populations Agric. Ecosyst. Eneviron., 15:253-256.
DeBach, P., 1964. Biological control of insect pest and weed. Reinhold publishing, New
york.
Devi, C., T.K. Singh and R. Varatharajan, 2002. Management of mustard aphid with natural
enemies plant product and chemical insecticides. Ind. J. Entomol., 64: 373-376.
Dhaka, S.S., S. Gaje, Y.P.S. Malik and A. Kumar, 2009. Efficacy of new Insecticieds against
Mustard aphids Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt). J. oilseed Res., 26: 172.
Dixon AFG. 1998. Aphid Ecology. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.
Downey, R.K., 1990. Brassica oilseed breeding achievement and opportunities. Plant breed.,
Abst., 60:1165-1170.
Eeigenbrode, S.D. and D. Pimentel, 1998. effect of manure and chemical fertilizers on insect
pest population on collards. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 20:109-125.
Elliot, N.C., G.J. Michels Jr., R.W. Kieckhefer and B.W. French, 1997. Sequential sampling
for adult coccinellids in wheat. USDA, ARS, Plant Sci. Res. Lab. 1301. N. Western
St. Stillwater, OK 74075, USA. Entomol. Exp. Appl., 84: 267-273.
Ellis P.R. and Farrell, J.A., 1995. Resistance to cabbage aphid (Brevicoryne brassicae) in six
Brassica accessions in New Zealand. New Zealand J. Crop and Hort. Scie., 23: 25–
29.
Ellis P.R. and R. Singh, 1993. A review of the host plants of Brevicoryne brassicae. Bulle.
OILB/SROP, 16: 192–201.
EYardin, N. and C. A. Edward, 2003. Effects of organic and synthetic fertilizer sources on
pest and predatory insects associated with tomatoes. Phytoparasitica
Farooq, A., 2007. Insect pest of canola (Brassica napus) and their management. PhD. thesis,
B.Z. Univ. Multan.
135
Gebhardt, C., and J.P.T. Valkonen, 2001. Organization of genes controlling disease
resistance in the potato genome. Ann. Rev. of Phytopathol., 39: 79-102.
Geetha, B. and Swamiappan, 1998. Improved adult rearing cages for the predator,
Chrysoperla carnea. Madras J. Agric., 85: 333-334.
Geza, K., 2000. Aphid flight and change in abundance of winter wheat pests. Archives
Phytopathol. Pl. Protec., 33: 361-373.
Godfray, H.C.J., 1994. Parasitoids, Behavioral and Evolutionary Ecology. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Hashmi, A.A., 1994. Insect Pest Management: Cereal and Cash Crops. National Agricultural
Research Centre, PARC, Islamabad. P. 317.
Hasken, K.H. and H.M. Poehling, 1995. Effect of different intensities of fertilization and
pesticides on aphids and aphid predator in winter wheat. Agric. Eco. Eneviron., 52:
45-50.
Hati, K.M., K.G. Mandal, A.K. Mihsra, P.K.Ghosh and C.L. Acharya, 2001. Evapo-
transpiration, water-use efficiency, moisture use and yield of Indian mustard
(Brassica juncea) under varying levels of irrigation and nutrient management in
Vertisol. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 74: 339-342.
Herm, D.S., 2002. Effect of fertilization on insect resistance of woody ornamental plants:
Reassessing an entrenched paradigm. Environ. Entomol., 31:932-933.
Hill, B.S., 1989. Cultural methods of pest, primarily insect, control. macdonald college of
mcgill university ste-anne de bellevue, qc, canada h9x 3v9 eap publication – 58.
Hsu, Y.T., T.C. Shen and S.Y. Hwang, 2009. Soil fertility management and pest responses: a
comparison of organic and synthetic fertilization. J. Econ. Entomol, 102:160–169.
Hughes, R.D., 1963. Population dynamics of the cabbage aphid, Brevicoryne brassicae (L.).
J. Animal Ecol., 32: 393–424.
king, A.B.S., 1994. Heliothus: Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera noctuidae) chapt:3 In G.A
Mathew and P. Tunstall (ed.) Insect pest of cotton. CAB International walling fprd.
Oxon. UK.
Irshad, M., Aphids and biological control in Pakistan. Pak. J. Bio. Sci, 4: 537-541.
136
Jarvie, J.A. and P.E. Shanahan, 2009. Assessing tolerance to soybean rust in selected
genotypes. Field Crops Research, 114: 419-425.
Katanyukul, W., S. Kadkoa, and A. Chantaratd, 1979. Effect of seedling density on gall
midge infestation and rice yields in Northern Thailand. International Rice Research
Newsletter 4, 5.
Kawada, K. and T. Murai, 1979. Apterous females and holocyclic reproduction of Lipaphis
erysimi in Japan, Entomol. Exp. Appl., 26: 343–345.
Kelm, M. and H. Gadomski, 1995. Occurrence and harmfulness of the cabbage aphid
(Brevicoryne brassicae L.) on winter rape. Materially Sesji Instytutu Ochrony roslin,
35: 101–3.
Kennedy, G.G. and N.K. Kishaba, 1975. Response of alate melon aphids to resistance and
susceptible musk melon lines. J. Econ. Entomol., 70: 407-410.
Kher, S. and Rataul H. S., 1991. Investigation on the mechanism of resistance in Oliferous.
Kimberly, S., 2011. Approaches to the Biological control of Insect Pests Kimberly Stoner
Dept of Entomology connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station 123 Huntington
Street P.O. Box 1106 New Haven, CT 06504-1106 http://www.ct.gov/caes/cwp/
view.asp?a=2815&q=376690.
Koritas, V. M. and S. G. Garsed, 1985. The effects of nitrogen and sulfur nutrition on the
response of Brussels sprout plants to infestation by the aphid Brevicoryne brassicae.
Ann. App. Biol., 106:1-15.
Kushwaha, K. S. and S. K. Sharma, 1981. Relationship of date of transplanting, spacing and
levels of nitrogen on the incidence of rice leaf folder in Haryana. Ind. J. Entomol., 43:
328-332.
Laisvūnė, D., and L. Raudonis, 2008. Seasonal abundance of Brevicoryne brassicae L. and
Diaeretiella rapae (M’Intosh) under different cabbage Growing systems.
EKologija.,54: 260–264.
Lamb, R.J., 1989. Entomology of oilseed Brassica crops. Ann. Rev. Entomol., 34: 211–229.
Liu S.S. and X.D. Meng. 1999. Modelling development time of Myzus persicae (Hemiptera:
Aphididae) at constant and natural temperatures. Bullet. Entomol. Res., 89, 53–63.
137
Liu, t.x. and A. N. Sparks,.1914. Research entomologist and extension entomologist the texas
a&m university system, aphids on cruciferous crops Identification and management
produced by agrilife communications and marketing, the Texas A& M university
system texas agrilife extension publications can be found on the web at:
http://agrilifebookstore.org
Liu, T.X., A.N. Sparks and T.Y. Chen, 2001. Toxicity baselines and efficacy of selected
aphicides against turnip aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) on cabbage. Southwest.
Entomol., 26: 15Ð21.
M. Aslam, M. Razaq, S. Hussain, A.K. Pathan, A. Khan, 2011. Biology of Cabbage Aphid
under Laboratory conditions. Pak. J. Zool., 43: 1009-1012.
Magdoff, F., H. van Es, 2000. Building soils for better crops. SARE, Washington DC.
Malet, J.C., C. Noyer, J.C. Maisonneuve and M. Canard, 1994. Chrysoperla lucasina
(Lacorix)(Neur., Chrysopidae) a potential predator of the Mediterranean Chrysoperla
Steinmann complex: first experiment to control Aphis gossypii Glover (Hom.,
Aphididae) on melon in France. J. Appl. Entomol., 118: 429-436.
Malik, M.F., M. Nawz, and Z. Hafeez, 2003. Inter and intra row spacing effect on thrips
(Thrips spp.) population in onion (Allium cepa) Asian J. Plant Sci. 2: 713-715.
Malik, Y. P. and B. Deen, 1998. Impact of aphid (Lipahis eyrsimi) intensity on plant growth
and seed characters of Indian mustard. Indian J. Ent., 24: 286-287.
Mandal, S.M.A., R.K. Mishra and A. Patra. 1994. Yield loss in rapeseed and mustard due to
aphid infestation in respect of different cultivars and dates of sowing. Orissa J. Agric.
Res., 7: 58-62.
Mar, J.K., S.V. Singh and Y.P. Malik, 2000. Population dynamics of mustard aphids
Lipaphis erysimi (kalt) on brassica crop in relation to abiotic and biotic factors.
Shashpa 5: 21-24.
Marghub, A., M. Aslam, M. Razaq and M. Afzal, 2009. Lack of plant resistance against
aphids, as indicated by their seasonal abundance in canola, (Brassica napus l.) In
southern punjab, pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 41: 1043-1051.
Marschner, H., 1986. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. Acadmeic Press, London.
138
Mattson, W.J., 1980. Herbivory in relation to plant nitrogen content. Ann. Revi. Ecol. and
Syste., 11:119-161.
McDonald,G., A.A. Hoffmann and T.J. Ridsdill-Smith, 1999. Managing earth mites as
establishment pests of Australian canola: a gradual path towards IPM. The Regional
Institute, Gosford, NSW. Proceedings of the 10th Int. Rapeseed cong., Canberra,
Australia, p. 9.
Meyer G. A., 2000. Interactive effects of soil fertility and herbivory on Brassica nigra. Oikos
22:433-441.
Micic, S., 2005a. Identification and Cultural control of Insect and Applied Pests of Canola.
Bulletion 4650. Department of Agriculture, South Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Micic, S., 2005b. Chemical control of Insect and Allied Pests of Canola. Farmnote No.
1/2005. Department of Agriculture, South Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Miles, M. and G. McDonald, 1999. Insect pests of canola. In: Canola in Australia – the First
Thirty Years (eds Salisbury, P.A., T.D.Potter, G.McDonald & A.G.Green). The
Canola Association of Australia Inc, Young, New South Wales, Australia. pp. 53–58.
Mirmohammadi, S., H. Allahyari, M.R. Nematollahi, and A. Saboori, 2009. Effect of Host
Plant on Biology and Life Table Parameters of Brevicoryne brassicae (Hemiptera:
Aphididae) Ann. Entomol. Socie. America, 102:450-455. 2009.
Morales, H., I. Perfecto and B. Furguson, 2002. Traditional fertilization and its effects on
corn insect population in Guatemalan highlands Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 20:279-
288.
Moran, N.A., 1992. The evolution of aphid life cycles, Annu. Rev. Entomol., 37 pp. 321–
348.
Mustafa, G., 2004. Effect of different insecticides against aphid on brassicae crop. Annual
Report. Ayub. Agric. Res. Inst., Pp80-81.
Nakata, T., 1994. Prey species of Orius sauteri (Poppius) (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae) in a
potato field in Hokkaido, Japan. Appld. Entomol. and Zool., 29: 614-616.
Nasir, S. and F. Ahmad, 2001. correlation between wheat aphid population and abiotic
factors. Pak. Entomol., 23: 23–25.
139
Oka, I. N. and D. Pimentel, 1976. Herbicide (2,4D) increases insect and pathogen pests on
corn. Science, 193: 239-240.
Painter, R. H.,1958. Resistance of plants to insects. Ann. Rev. Entomol., 3: 267-290.
Palaniswamy, P., 1996. Host plant resistance to insect pests of cruciferous crops with special
reference to flea beetles feeding canola – a review. Acta Horticulture (ISHS), 407:
469–482.
Panda, N. and G.S. Khush, 1995. Host Plant Resistance to Insects. CAB International,
Wallingford, USA.
Parsad, S.K., 1992. Relative efficacy of some synthetic parathyroid and phosphomidon
against mustard aphid Lipaphis erysimi. Ann. Agric. Res., 13: 137-140.
Patriquin, D.G., D. Baines and A. Abbound, 1995. Diseases, pests and soil fertelilty in cook,
H.F. and Lee, H.C.(eds) Soil management in sustainable agriculture wye college
press, wye u.k. pp.161-174.
Patriquin, D.G., D. Baines and A. Abound, 1995. Diseases, Pests and Soil fertility in: H.F.
Lee, H.C. (Eds) Soil Management in Sustainable Agriculture, Wye college press wye,
U.K. pp.161-174.
Patriquin, D.G., D. Baines, J. Lewis and A. Macdougall, 1988. Aphid infestation of
fababeans on an organic farm in relation to weeds, intercrop and added nitrogen
Agric. Ecosystem Environ. 20:279-288.
Pedley, K.F. and G.B. Martin, 2003. Molecular basis of Pto-mediated resistance to bacterial
speck disease in tomato. Ann. Revi. Phytopathol., 41: 215-243.
Phadke, K.G., 1985. Oil seed production: constraints and oppertunities. Division of
entomology. IARI, new Dehli. Mohan Primlani for oxford and IBH publishingco.
pp.416-417.
Phelan, P. L., J. F. Mason and B. R. Stinner , 1995. Soil fertility management and host
preference by European corn borer, Ostria nubilis (Hulbner) on zea mays L : A
comparison of organic and conventional chemical farming Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ.56:1-8.
140
Ponti, L., M. A. Altieri, and A. P. Gutierrez, 2007. Effects of crop diversification levels and
fertilization regimes on abundance of Brevicoryne brassicae (L.) and its parasitization
by Diaeretiella rapae (M’Intosh) in broccoli. Agric.Forest. Entomol., 9: 209–214.
Prestidge, R.A. and S. McNeill, 1983. The role of nitrogen in the ecology of grassland
Auchenorruncha. In J A Lee, S McNeill and I H Rorison (eds) Nitrogen as an
Ecological Factor. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 257-282.
Rafi, M., A. Irshad and Inayatullah, 2005. Predatory ladbird beetles of Pakistan . National
Insect Museum & Insect Pest Informatics, IPM Program. NARC & NWFP Agric.
Univ. Pesh. Pak., 1-5:39-40.
Rahman S.A., R. Zada, I.A. Khan, I. Munir, S. Rehman, and H.J.A. Khan, 2009. Population
Trend of Canola Aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.) (Homoptera: Aphididae) and its
associated natural enemies in different brassica Lines along with the effect of gamma
radiation on their population. World Acad. Scie., Eng. and Tech., 73 pp
Rahnema, A.A. and A.M. Bakhshandeh, 2006. Determination of optimum irrigation level and
compatible canola varieties in the Mediterranean environment. Asian J. Plant Sci., 5:
543-546.
Ramesh, P., M. Singh and A. Subba Rao, 2005. Organic farming: Its relevance to the effects
of organic fertilizers on insect pest and diseases of rice Indian context. Curr. Scie., 88:
561-568.
Rana, J.S., 2005. Performance of L. erysimi (Homoptera: Aphididae) on different Brassica
species in a tropical environment. J. Pest Sci., 78: 155-160.
Rana, J.S., 2005. Performance of Lipaphis erysimi (Homoptera: Aphididae) on different
Brassica species in a tropical environment. J. Pest Sci., 78: 155-160.
Rao, K.K., 2002 Induced host plant resistance in the management sucking insect pest ground
nut: Ann. Plant Prot. Scie., 10: 45-50.
Rashid, R.H., 2005. Efficacy of some insecticides against population of aphids on brassicae
M.Sc. (thesis) Deptt. Entomol. University of Agric. Faisalabad, pp-80.
Raymer P.L., 2002. Canola: an emerging oilseed crop. In: Trends in New Crops and New
Uses (eds JJanick & AWhipkey), ASHA Press, Alexandria, USA. pp. 122–126.
141
Razaq, M., A. Mehmood, M. Aslam, M. Ismail, M. Afzal and S. A. Shad, 2011. Losses in
yield and yield components caused by aphids to late sown Brassica napus l., Brassica
juncea l. and Brassica carrinata a. Braun atmultan, Punjab (Pakistan). Pak. J. Bot.,
43:319-324.
Razaq, M., A. Mehmood, M. Aslam, M. Ismail, M. Afzal and S. A. Shad, 2011. Losses in
yield and yield components caused byaphids to late sown Brassica napus l., Brassica
Juncea and Brassica carrinata a. Braun at Multan, punjab (pakistan). Pak. J. Bot.,
43: 319-324.
Reddi, G. H.S. and T. Y. Reddi, 1995. Irrigation of principal crops, In Efficient Use of
Irrigation Water. 2nd ed.: Kalyani Publishers. New Delhi, India, pp. 229-259.
Rehman, K.A., M. Munir and A. Yousaf, 1987. Rape and Mustard in Pakistan, pp. 101.
PARC Islamabad.
Robinson, M. R. and A. A. Hoffmann, 2000. Additional tests on the effects of pesticides
oncryptic species of blue oat mite (Penthaleus spp.) and the redlegged earth mite
(Halotydeus destructor). Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40: 671–678.
Rohilla, H. R., H. Singh, T. P. Yadave and H. Singh. 1996. Seasonal abundance of aphid pest
on rapeseed-mustard crop in Haryana Ann. Agric. Biol. Res.,1: 75-78.
Rosenheim, J. A., L. R. Wilhoit and C. A. Armer, 1993. Influence of intrigued predation
among generalist insect predations on suppression of an herbivore population.
Oecologia, 96: 439-449.
Scopes, N.E.A., 1975. The potential of C. carnea as a biological control agent of Myzus
persicae on glass house chrysanthemum. Ann. App. Biol., 64: 433-439.
Shah, M.M.R., A.K.M. Maula, M.N.A. Siddquie, M.A.A. Mamun and M.S. Islam. 2008.
Effect of insecticides on the growth parameters, yield and oil content of mustard. Int.
J. Sustain. Crop Prod.
Shanower, T.G., T.G. Kelley and S.E. cowgill, 1997. Development of effective and
environmentally sound strategies to control Helicoverpa armigera in Pigeon pea and
chick pea production systems. In R.K. saini (ed.), Tropical entomology. ICIPE
Science Press, Nairobi. Pp. 255-276.
142
Sigh, S.S. and M.N. Lal, 1999. Seasonal incidence of mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi on
mustard crop. J. Entomol. Res., 23: 165-167.
Singh H., Z. Singh and J.P. Yadave. 1987. Post harvest losses in Rapeseed caused by aphid
pest. Porc. 7th Intl. cong. Poland, 5: 1138-1142.
Singh V. S., S.M.V. Sekhar, R.P. Sharma, 2001. Root aphid infestation in wheat at Delhi
and its control. Indian J. Enotomol., 63: 197–201.
Singh, C.P. and G.C. Sachan, 1999. Populations build up of C. septempunctata and its
synchronization with L. erysimi. Department of Entomology, college of Agriculture,
G.B. Pant University ofAgriculture & Technology, Pantnagar. 18: 25-30.
Singh, H. 1982. Dissertation, Doctor of Philosophy, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar.
Singh, R., D. Singh and V.U.M. Rao, 2007.Effect of Abiotic factors on Mustard Aphid
lipaphis erysimi kalt.) on Indian Brassica. Indian J. Agric. Res., 41: 67 – 70.
Singh, S.S. and M.N. lal, 1999. Seasonal incidence of mustard aphid Lipaphis erysimi on
mustard crop. J. Entomol. Res., 23:165-167.
Sinha, R. P., S.S. Yazdani and K. Kumari, 1999. Field evaluation of granular insecticides
against mustard aphid and economic of application. Ind. J. Entomol., 61:1-6.
Sirimachan, N., O. Kern-asa, W. Amornsak, and W. Suasa-ard, 2005. Biological study and
efficiency of the green lacewing, Mallada basalis (Walker) (Neuroptera:
Chrysopidae) as biological control agent of Aphis craccivora Koch (Homoptera:
Aphididae). National Bio. control Res. Center. Proceedings of 43rd Kasetsart
UniversityAnnual conference,Thailand, 1-4 February.
Slansky, F. and P. Feeny, 1977. Stabilization of the rate of nitrogen accumulation by larvae
of the cabbage butterfly on wild and cultivated food plants. Ecol. Monogr., 47:
209Ð228.
Smatas R., K. Tamosiunas, R. Semaskiene, Z. Dabkevicius and S Lazauskas, 2008. Trends in
aphid occurrence in spring barley in 1976–2007. J. Plant Protec. Res., 48: 275–282.
Smith, C.M., 1989. Plant resistance to insects. John Wiley and Sons.
Srinivasan, R. Babu, J. M. Alvarez, N. A. B. Pe rez, S. D. Eigenbrode and R. G. Novy,
2008. Effect of an Alternate Weed Host, Hairy Nightshade, Solanum sarrachoides,
143
on the Biology of the Two Most Important Potato Leafroll Virus (Luteoviridae:
Polerovirus) Vectors, Myzus persicae and Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Aphididae:
Homoptera) J. Eneviron, Entomol., vol. 37 no.2. Entomol. Soc. America.
Srivastava A., Singh H., Thakur H.L. 1995. Impact of abiotic factors on the population
dynamics of mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.) (Homotera: Aphididae).
J.Oilseed Res., 12: 197–202.
Srivastava, C.P. and R.P. Srivastava, 1989. Screening of resistance to gram pod borer
(Heliothus armigera) in chick pea (Cicer aritinum) genotypes and observation on its
mechanism of resistance. Insect Sci. Appl., 10:255-257.
Staley, T.J., A.S. Jones, T.W. Pope, D.J. Wright, Simon R. Leather, P. Hadley, J.T.Rossiter,
H.F. van Emden and G.M. Poppy, 2009. Varying responses of insect herbivores to
altered plant chemistry under organic and conventional treatments Proc. R. Soc. B.,
277: 779–786.
Stanley, M., and S. Marcroft 1999. Canola: The Ute Guide. TOPCROP Australia, Primary
Industry and Resources South Australia, Adelaide, Australia. statistics, A Biometrical
approach, 3rd edition. WCB Mcgraw Hill companies, Inc., USA.
Stern, D.L. 1995, Aphidomorpha. Aphids, green flies, plant lice, adelgids, phylloxerids.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_to aphid infestation in respect of different
cultivars and dates of sowing. Orissa J. Agric. Res., 7: 58-62.
Sudhakara, K., K.C. Punnaiah and P. V. Krishnaya, 1998. Influence of organic and inorganic
fertilizer and certain insecticide on the incidence of shoot and fruit borer Luecinobes
orbonalis infesting brinjal J. Entomol. Res., 22:283-286.
Tamaki, G., M.A. Weis and G.E. Long, 1980. Impact of high temperatures on the population
dynamics of the green peach aphid in field cages. Envir. Entomol., 9: 311 - 337.
Umina, P.A. and A.A. Hoffmann, 1999. Tolerance of cryptic species of blue oat mites
(Penthaleus spp.) and the redlegged earth mite (Halotydeus destructor) to pesticides.
Aus. J. Exp. Agric., 39: 621–628.
Van Embden, H.F. and M.A. Bashford, 1971. The preference of B. brassicae inrelation to
plant age and leaf amino acid. Entomol. Exp. Appl., 14: 349-360.
144
Van Emden H. F., V. F. Eastop, R. D. Hughes and M. J. Way, 1969. The ecology of Myzus
persicae. Ann. Revi. Entomol., 14: 197–270.
Van Emden, H. F. 1966. Studies on the relations of insect and host plants III. A comparison
of the reproduction of Brevicryne brassicae and Myzzus persicae (Hemiptera:
Aphididae) on Brussels sprout plants supplied with different rates of nitrogen and
potassium. Entomol. Exp. Appl., 9: 444-460.
Wains M.S., A. Rehman, M. Latif and M. Hussain, 2008. Aphid dynamics in wheat as
affected by weather and crop planting time. J. Agric. Res., 46: 361–366.
Way, M. J. and M. E. Cammell, 1970. Self regulation in aphid populations. Proceedings of
the Advanced Study of InsectsInstitute on ‘Dynamics of Numbers in Populations
TheNetherlands. P. 232–242.
White T. C. R., 1984. The abundance of invertebrate herbivores in relation to the availability
of nitrogen in stressed food plants. Oecologia, 63: 90-105.
Winkleman, G.F., R. Amin, W.A. Rice and M.B.Tahir, 1986. Methods. Manual soils
laboratory. Barani Agri. Res. Dev. Proj., Pak. Agri .Res. council, Islamabad,
(Pakistan).pp.30-33.
Wyatt, I. J., and P. F. White. 1997. Simple estimation of intrinsic rates of increase rates for
aphids and tetranychid mites. J. Appl. Ecol., 14: 757Ð766.
Yoshida, M., A.E. cowgill and J.A. Wight man, 1997. Role of oxalic acid and malic acid in
chick pea trichome exudates in host plant resistance to H. armigera J. Econ.
Entomol., 88:253-257.
Yoshida, M., A.E. cowgill and J.A. Wightman, 1995. Mechanism of resistance to H.
armigera in chick pea: Role of oxalic acid in leaf exudates as an antibiotic factor. J.
Econ. Entomol., 88: 1783-1786.
145
APPENDICES
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF APHIDS ON CANOLA IN PUNJAB, PAKISTAN Appendix 1 Analysis of variance of the data regarding population distribution of
cabbage aphids (B. brassicae) on canola during 2008. (n=3)
Source DF SS MS F P
Date 4 105577 26394.2 186.48 0.0000
Location 3 19227 6409.1 45.28 0.0000
Date Location 12 36754 3062.8 21.64 0.0000
Error 38 5379 141.5
Total 59 167534
Grand Mean: 58.640; n: Number of replications Appendix 2 Analysis of variance of the data regarding population distribution of
cabbage aphids (B. brassicae) on canola during 2009. (n=3)
Source DF SS MS F P
Date 4 114775 28693.8 168.51 0.0000
Location 3 19446 6482.1 38.07 0.0000
Date Location 12 36526 3043.9 17.88 0.0000
Error 38 6471 170.3
Total 59 178231
Grand Mean 62.359; n: Number of replications Appendix 3 Analysis of variance of the data regarding population distribution of
green peach aphids (M. persicae) on canola during 2008. (n=3)
Source DF SS MS F P
Date 4 2244.0 560.99 8.75 0.0000
Location 3 8841.0 2947.00 45.95 0.0000
Date Location 12 4755.9 396.33 6.18 0.0000
Error 38 2437.2 64.14
Total 59 18362.6
Grand Mean 8.4533; n: Number of replications
146
Appendix 4 Analysis of variance of the data regarding population distribution of green peach aphids (M. persicae) on canola during 2009. (n=3)
Source DF SS MS F P
Date 4 2631.3 657.83 10.48 0.0000
Location 3 10052.2 3350.72 53.39 0.0000
Date Location 12 5053.9 421.16 6.71 0.0000
Error 38 2385.1 62.77
Total 59 20212.5
Grand Mean 9.5633; n: Number of replications Appendix 5 Analysis of variance of the data regarding population distribution of
mustard aphids (L. erysimi) on canola during 2008. (n=3) Source DF SS MS F P
Date 4 8113.7 2028.44 38.34 0.0000
Location 3 1852.4 617.47 11.67 0.0000
Date Location 12 1480.6 123.39 2.33 0.0236
Error 38 2010.3 52.90
Total 59 13476.9
Grand Mean 16.158; n: Number of replications Appendix 6 Analysis of variance of the data regarding population distribution of
turnip aphids (L. erysimi) on Canola during 2009. (n=3) Source DF SS MS F P
Date 4 12766.3 3191.58 133.79 0.0000
Location 3 4220.5 1406.85 58.97 0.0000
Date Location 12 5337.1 444.76 18.64 0.0000
Error 38 906.5 23.86
Total 59 23238.2
Grand Mean 20.815; n: Number of replications
147
THE EFFECT OF CANOLA CULTIVARS WITH VARYING LEVELS OF RESISTANCE TO APHIDS UNDER DIFFERENT FARMING SYSTEMS IN FIELD coNDITIONS (SYNTHETIC FERTILIZERS AND FARMYARD MANURE APLLICATION) Appendix 7 Analysis of Variance For the data regarding effect of canola cultivars
with varying levels of resistance to cabbage aphids under different farming systems during 2009. (n=3)
Source DF SS MS F P
FS 2 13443 6721.4 173.16 0.0000
Date 5 60320 12064.1 310.80 0.0000
Var 10 1262 126.2 3.25 0.0004
FS Date 10 11052 1105.2 28.47 0.0000
FS Var 20 2238 111.9 2.88 0.0000
Date Var 50 7497 149.9 3.86 0.0000
Error 494 19175 38.8
Total 593 115245
Grand Mean 13.652; n: Number of replications Appendix 8 Analysis of Variance For the data regarding effect of canola cultivars
with varying levels of resistance to cabbage aphids under different farming systems during 2010. (n=3)
Source DF SS MS F P
FS 2 11289 5644.5 139.61 0.0000
Date 5 56513 11302.7 279.56 0.0000
Var 10 1262 126.2 3.12 0.0007
FS Date 10 10745 1074.5 26.58 0.0000
FS Var 20 2238 111.9 2.77 0.0001
Date Var 50 7497 149.9 3.71 0.0000
Error 494 19972 40.4
Total 593 110141
Grand Mean 16.175; n: Number of replications
148
Appendix 9 Analysis of Variance For the data regarding effect of canola cultivars with varying levels of resistance to green peach aphids under different farming systems during 2009. (n=3)
Source DF SS MS F P
FS 2 46181 23090.3 243.64 0.0000
Date 5 115917 23183.5 244.62 0.0000
Var 10 1878 187.8 1.98 0.0334
FS Date 10 45888 4588.8 48.42 0.0000
FS Var 20 4907 245.3 2.59 0.0002
Date Var 50 20036 400.7 4.23 0.0000
Error 494 46818 94.8
Total 593 282110
Grand Mean 17.494; n: Number of replications Appendix 10 Analysis of Variance For the data regarding effect of canola cultivars
with varying levels of resistance to green peach aphids under different farming systems during 2010. (n=3)
Source DF SS MS F P
FS 2 46181 23090.3 242.01 0.0000
Date 5 120565 24112.9 252.72 0.0000
Var 10 1878 187.8 1.97 0.0348
FS Date 10 45888 4588.8 48.09 0.0000
FS Var 20 4907 245.3 2.57 0.0002
Date Var 50 20036 400.7 4.20 0.0000
Error 494 47134 95.4
Total 593 286764
Grand Mean 21.383; n: Number of replications
149
Appendix 11 Analysis of Variance For the data regarding effect of canola cultivars with varying levels of resistance to turnip aphids under different farming systems during 2009. (n=3)
Source DF SS MS F P
FS 2 8644.1 4322.04 339.42 0.0000
Date 5 45763.7 9152.73 718.79 0.0000
Var 10 289.1 28.91 2.27 0.0133
FS Date 10 3840.6 384.06 30.16 0.0000
FS Var 20 766.7 38.33 3.01 0.0000
Date Var 50 2583.3 51.67 4.06 0.0000
Error 494 6290.3 12.73
Total 593 68218.7
Grand Mean 12.451; n: Number of replications Appendix 12 Analysis of Variance For the data regarding effect of canola cultivars
with varying levels of resistance to turnip aphids under different farming systems during 2010. (n=3)
Source DF SS MS F P
FS 2 13443 6721.4 173.16 0.0000
Date 5 60320 12064.1 310.80 0.0000
Var 10 1262 126.2 3.25 0.0004
FS Date 10 11052 1105.2 28.47 0.0000
FS Var 20 2238 111.9 2.88 0.0000
Date Var 50 7497 149.9 3.86 0.0000
Error 494 19175 38.8
Total 593 115471
Grand Mean 17.985; n: Number of replications