MANAGEMENT OF COCONUT PERIANTH MITE, Aceria guerreronis

MANAGEMENT OF COCONUT PERIANTH MITE, Aceria guerreronis Keifer

Thesis submitted to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE (AGRICULTURE)

in

AGRICULTURAL ENTOMOLOGY

By

PUSHPA V.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ENTOMOLOGY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL, DHARWAD

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWAD – 580005

MAY, 2006

ADVISORY COMMITTEE Dharwad (B.S. NANDIHALLI) MAY, 2006 MAJOR ADVISOR Approved by:

Chairman : ______________________ (B.S. NANDIHALLI)

Members : 1.____________________ (L. KRISHNA NAIK) 2.____________________ (K. BASAVANA GOUD) 3.____________________ (J.C. MATHAD)

C O N T E N T S

Chapter No. Title Page No.

I INTRODUCTION

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE

III MATERIAL AND METHODS

IV EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

V DISCUSSION

VI SUMMARY

VII REFERENCES

LIST OF TABLES

Table No.

Title Page No.

1. Treatment details of pesticides and biopesticides in the management of A. guerreronis under field condition

2. Treatment details of scheduled application of spray and root feeding

3. Surveillance of coconut mite during 2003-04 at Dharwad

4. Correlation between eriophyid mite incidence and weather parameters

5. Evaluation of pesticides and biopesticides under laboratory conditions

6. Efficacy of acaricides and insecticides against active stages of mite A. guerreronis during I spray

7. Efficacy of acaricides and insecticides against active stages of mite A. guerreronis during II spray

8. Efficacy of acaricides and insecticides against active stages of mite A. guerreronis during III spray

9. Efficacy of acaricides and insecticides against eggs of mite A. guerreronis during I spray

10. Efficacy of acaricides and insecticides against eggs mite A. guerreronis during II spray

11. Efficacy of acaricides and insecticides against eggs of mite A. guerreronis during III spray

12. Bio-efficacy of acaricides and insecticides on nut damage due to A. guerreronis

13. Bio-efficacy of insecticides on the damage grading of nuts due to A. guerreronis

14. Efficacy of botanicals against active stages of mite, A. guerreronis during I spray

Contd…..

Table No.

Title Page No.

15. Efficacy of botanicals against active stages of mite, A. guerreronis during II spray

16. Efficacy of botanicals against active stages of mite, A. guerreronis during III spray

17. Efficacy of botanicals against egg stages of A. guerreronis during I spray

18. Efficacy of botanicals against egg stages of A. guerreronis during II spray

19. Efficacy of botanicals against egg stages of A. guerreronis during III spray

20. Bio-efficacy of botanicals on nut damage due to A. guerreronis

21. Bio-efficacy of botanicals on the damage grading of nuts due to A. guerreronis

22. Effect of spray schedule on active stages of mite of A. guerreronis

23. Effect of spray schedule on eggs population of A. guerreronis

24. Effect of spray schedule on nut yields and damage

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No.

Title Between pages

1. Surveillance of coconut mite on nut surface during 2003-04 at Dharwad

2. Surveillance of coconut mite on perianth during 2003-04 at Dharwad

3. Evaluation of pesticides and biopesticides under laboratory conditions

4. Efficacy of acaricides and insecticides against active stages of mite A. guerreronis under field conditions

5. Efficacy of acaricides and insecticides against eggs of mite A. guerreronis under field conditions

6. Efficacy of botanicals against active stages of mite, A. guerreronis under field conditions

7. Efficacy of botanicals against egg stages of A. guerreronis under field conditions

8. Effect of spray schedule on mite population of A. guerreronis

LIST OF PLATES

Plate No.

Title Between pages

1. Nuts for evaluation under laboratory condition 16-17

2. Healthy nuts in fenazaquin treated palms 82-83

3. Healthy nuts in NSKE treated palms 82-83

4. Infested nuts in untreated palms 82-83

I. INTRODUCTION

Plantation crops are cultivated extensively in tropical and sub tropical regions which demand employment of labour throughout the year. Plantation crops always have an upper hand in national economy because of their employment potential, income, export and import substitution. Plantation crops cultivated on extensive scale are tea, coffee, rubber, coconut etc. Among these, coconut palm, Cocos nucifera Linn. is an unique and most useful tree. It belongs to the family Arecaceae. Every part of the palm is used for the daily needs of the people. Hence, it is called as “Kalpavriksha”, the tree of heaven. It is also called as “king of tropical flora and tree of life”.

The South Pacific and South Africa are often cited as the possible centers of origin (Child, 1974). It is an important crop in coastal ecosystem. This is grown in an area of 12 million hectares all over the world. Asia and Pacific regions account for 90 per cent of the area. India, Indonesia, Philippines and Sri Lanka are the major coconut growing countries in the world, which contribute for over 75 per cent of global nut production.

India is the third largest coconut producing country. Presently, the crop covers an area of 1.9 million hectares with an estimated production of 12.8 billion nuts per annum, which account for about 22.36 of the world production. The four southern coconut growing states, namely, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh account for 90 per cent in total area and production.

Eventhough coconut enjoys a prime position as a plantation crop in the country it faces many problems like vagaries of nature and sudden outbreak of pests and diseases. The palm is exposed to 106 insects and one mite (Nirula, 1955), 38 species of insects and four species of mite (Nair, 1975).

The eriophyid mite, Aceria guerreronis Keifer belonging to family Eriophyidae was first identified in Guerrero state of Mexico during 1960. It was first described in 1965 from specimens collected from Guerrero state of Mexico (Keifer, 1965), but it was unknown in Indian subcontinent till 1984, when it was first recorded from Srivilliputhur area of Tamil Nadu. Later the spread was reported from several countries in South and Central America, Africa, the Carribean islands, Pacific and Indian ocean areas.

In India, the mite attained a major pest status in the three peninsular states of India viz., Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and it is spreading towards north also (Sathiamma et al., 1998). It has drawn national attention as a threat to the coconut plantation (Sathiamma et al., 1998 and Mohana Sundaram et al., 1999).

The eriophyid mites are microscopic, having an elongated worm like body. They have an anterior cephalothorax and an annulated tapering abdomen with two pairs of legs in the anterior end of the body and needle like mouth parts.

The female adult mite lays 50-100 eggs during its lifetime. The eggs hatch in two days. The lifecycle consists of egg, two larval instars and an adult stage. The total life cycle is completed in 10-12 days (Mariau, 1977). The adults measure 200-250 micron in length and 36-52 micron in width (Ramarethinam and Loganathan, 2000).

The mites are found inhabitating in cluster on the nut surface below the perianth portion of the inner perianth. They suck the sap from the tender coconut tissues. The mites feed by injuring the tender portion. Initially the damage appears as a triangular yellowish brown patch at perianth surface and as infestation advances a number of similar patches can be seen on the nut which ultimately leads to warting and longitudinal fissures on the nut (Ramarethinam et al., 2001).

As a result of damage, the growth of nut is prevented and hence the normal size of the nuts, shell and kernel is also reduced. The damage by the pest not only affects the quality and quantity of the fibre of the husk but also causes difficulty and delay in dehusking operations. Reduction in nut size leads to about 25 per cent loss in the yield of copra (Gopal and Gupta, 2001). Consequently production of small sized nuts has been increasing rapidly (Anon., 2002) and the under sized nuts are discarded by the traders.

There is lack of information regarding surveillance and suitable schedule for management of coconut mite in Dharwad area and also the information in management of

coconut mite through botanicals and newer chemicals is less. Considering the importance of coconut as a plantation crop in the country and the potentiality of this mite to cause extensive damage and to manage this pest, many pesticides and biopesticides have been evaluated and natural enemies are also reported, but still there is a need to investigate on seasonal abundance of mite and scheduling of management practices. Keeping this background the present investigation was undertaken with the following objectives.

1. Surveillance for the coconut mite around Dharwad.

2. Evaluation of pesticides and biopesticides against the mite under laboratory and field conditions.

3. Development of suitable schedule of application of chemical as sprays and root feeding against the mite.

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The literature pertaining to coconut mite is less as it is a recent pest. But still the reports of many authors on seasonal incidence of mite and its natural enemies, management of the pest through chemicals and bio-pesticides and spray schedule are available to a limited extent have been collected and presented here.

2.1 SURVEILLANCE OF COCONUT PERIANTH MITE

Mariau (1977) reported that nut yield was reduced to greater extent due to slow growth of nuts during dry periods which resulted in susceptibility of nuts for mite infestation.

Studies on migration and colonization of coconut palm by Eriophyes guerreronis (K.) in St. Lucia of West Indies showed that, mites were not found in unfertilized flowers but were present within a few weeks of fertilization. In the tree much migration of mites could be seen walking in large numbers across nut surfaces and they could move from one inflorescence to another if they were in contact (Moore and Alexander, 1987a and Schiesseke, 1990).

The pest is present in the garden throughout the year but the infestation is more severe during dry periods than wet climate as reported by Zuluaga and Sanches (1971) and Griffith (1984).

Howard et al. (1990) reported the predominance of coconut mite with in tropical and subtropical regions and able to survive under frost and temperate conditions, preferably longer periods in temperate (above zero).

Haq (1999) gave confirmationary results of population density of mite at Puthukkad in Trichur district of Kerala. Slight increase was seen during July-August and then declined upto October, a slow rise was seen from October and accelerated in December which continued upto March-May. From June population declined until July. There has been a positive correlation between mite population and dry climate and negative with rainfall.

Kannaiyan et al. (2000) studied population fluctuation at Agricultural Research Station, Aliyaranagar which revealed that maximum population was seen during May (86/4 mm²) followed by April (73 mites/4 mm²) and March (70 mites4 mm²).

Vidyasagar (2000) noted that the peak incidence of mite population could be seen throughout the year irrespective of seasons. Reddy and Naik (2000) also noticed the similar trend in Chittor district of Andhra Pradesh. Populations of both active stages and egg stage of A.guerreronis had no significant relation with the weather factors i..e neither summer nor rainy season (Varadarajan, 2000).

Varadarajan and David (2000) reported that densities of active mites and eggs were not significantly correlation with weather parameters. Mites were more abundant on post fertilization bunch when recorded on the surface of drupes. Eggs were more numerous on tepal surface than on drupe surface.

Prasad and Ranganath (2000) reported the occurrence of the perianth mite in Andaman. Further studies on the occurrence of mite in Andamans indicated that the mites found under the perianth were different from A. guerreronis and confirmed as Colomerus novahebridensis (Kiefer).

Arthanari et al. (2002) studied the relationship between weather parameters and nuts affected with eriophyid mite which indicated that temperature had both positive and negative correlation with respect to cultivars and wind speed had higher effect on the nuts affected with mite irrespective of cultivars except in tall x dwarf cultivar.

Natarajan et al. (2002) reported that the mite population was high in 2 to 6 month old buttons which was observed during survey in Coimbatore area. As many as 2 to 140 motile stages of the mites along with the larger number of eggs were found in area of 4 mm and also revealed that there was no clear relationship between mite population and weather parameters.

Nair et al. (2002) studied the status and seasonal abundance of mites and reported the wide spread occurrence of eriophyid mites in states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and

Andhra Pradesh in South India and observations on seasonal incidence showed the persistent nature of the pest with the population peak in summer months (April-May).

Ramaraju et al. (2003) made correlation study and revealed that there was no significant relationship between eriophyid mite and any weather parameters. However, eriophyid mite population on four month old buttons had positive correlation with predatory mites.

2.1.1 Damage grading of nuts

Julia and Mariau (1979) gave classification of dry nuts based on surface damage in five categories (1) nuts with no damage (0%) (2) nuts with slight damage (1-10%) (3) nuts with significant mite damage of (11-25%) (4) nuts with severe mite damage (26-50%) and (5) nuts heavily damaged which are very much reduced in size and greatly distorted (51-100%) damage.

Moore et al. (1989) graded the green nuts into five damage grades viz., none (0%), low (1-10%), medium (11-25%), severe (26-50%) and very severe (51-100%).

Varadarajan (2000) developed five grade scale to assess the damage to both green and dry nuts: Nut surface plain and fresh without any injury (Grade 0); Scarification on the nut surface in triangular patches (Grade 1); Contiguous or discontinuous scarification on ¼ of the nut surface (Grade 3); Contiguous or discontinuous scarification on ½ of the nut surface (Grade 5) and Continuous or discontinuous scarification on ¾ of the nut surface with or without fissures and or gummosis or less than ¾ of nut surface with fissures and or gummosis (Grade 6), with or without deformation (Grade 7).

Nair et al. (2001) grouped the harvested mature coconut into five grades as 0 Grade – healthy nuts without any infestation; Grade 1 – nuts with warting symptoms on 25 per cent of nut surface; Grade 2 – wartings on 25-50 per cent; Grade 3 – wartings on 50-75 per cent of nut surface; Grade 4 – wartings on more than 75 per cent of nut surface or deformed nuts and Grade R – nuts showing symptoms of remission after inoculated spray.

Paul and Mathew (2002) classified nuts according to injuries as Undamaged – 0 per cent, category-I; Superficially damaged – 1-10 per cent category-II; Significantly damaged 11-25 per cent category-III; Significantly damaged and slightly distorted 26-50 per cent category-IV and Heavily infested, greatly reduced in size and greatly distorted 51-100 per cent category-V.

2.2 MANAGEMENT OF MITE USING BOTANICALS

Turmeric powder extract in water was found toxic to Tetranychus telarius L. (McIndoo, 1982).

Ramarethinam et al. (2000) suggested that the usage of nimbecidine in combination with one or more entomopathogenic fungi like Hirsutella thompsonii, Verticillium lecanii (Zimmerman) Vieges and Paecilomyces sp. in 200 litres of water was found better for mite control in coconut.

Ramaraju et al. (2000) observed that TNAU neem oil 60 EC three per cent gave 55.14 per cent mite mortality.

Mixture of 2 per cent neem oil + garlic extract and soap emulsion was effective against coconut perianth mite (Saradamma et al., 2000).

Amritha et al. (2002) studied the efficacy of natural products for the control of coconut eriophyid mite and they reported that 5 per cent starch solution treatment was more effective based on damage intensity score (1.89%), percentage of damaged nuts (19.36%), and percentage reduction in mite population (77.37%) and 5 per cent salt solution treatment was at par with starch solution 5 per cent treatment while rubber latex and cow’s milk were not effective.

Balaji and Hariprasad (2003) evaluated the efficacy of aqueous suspension of five plant extracts namely, phytopalm (3% and 5%), NSKE (5%), neem oil (3%), Vitex negundo extract (3%), calotropis leaf extract (5%) and commercial neem formulations viz., neemazal 1000 ppm (1%) and fortuneaza 3000 ppm. Among different plant products, phytopalm (3%

and 5%) gave significantly higher per cent reduction of mite population at early stage of nut development. Neem formulations were on par with each other while nochi leaf extract (3%) was least effective.

NSKE (10%), azadirachtin (0.009%), garlic extract (10%), neem oil (6%) and sweet flag (10%) were significantly effective in reducing mite population and nut damage (Thirumali et al., 2003).

2.2.1 Management of mite using chemicals

Mariau and Julia (1970) observed that lowest number of damaged nuts were obtained with application of quinomethionate @ 0.05 per cent at three weeks intervals.

Mariau and Tchibozo (1973) reported that spraying quinomethionate (0.0125%), monocrotophos (0.04%) or tricyclohexyltin hydroxide (0.03%) reduced the percentage of nuts infested to an extent of 2.8, 7.3 and 1.6 respectively, while untreated check recorded the nut infestation of 82 to 98.8 per cent.

Hernadez (1977) found reduction of eriophyid mite damage significantly with spraying of 2 ml dicrotophos, 2 ml monocrotophos, 2 ml quinomethionate and 1.5 ml cyhexaltin per litre of water to the inflorescence and nuts less than three months old at the interval of 20 or 30 days.

Mariau (1977) showed that monocrotophos (0.014%) and dimethoate (0.03%) spraying at an interval of two months reduced the nut loss by 90 per cent due to A. guerreronis.

Moore and Alexander (1987b) found that stem injection of vamidithion did not reduce the mite damage. Mohanasundaram et al. (1999) reported that triazophos when root fed @ 20 ml per palm with equal quantity of water in two different roots of the same tree, effectively reduced the mite population.

Muthiah and Bhaskaran (1999) recommended that, spraying of methyl demeton at 4 ml per litre or triazophos 5 ml per litre of water at 7 to 10 days interval to reduce the mite infestation.

Triazophos 40 EC @ 5 ml or methyl demeton 25 EC @ 4 ml per litre of water or root feeding of monocrotophos 25 EC @ 15 ml + 15 ml of water per tree gave reasonable control of mite infestation. But the mite population started increasing again 23 days after treatment (Ramaraju et al., 2000).

Chandrika Mohan and Nair (2000) conducted an experiment at Krishnapuram, Kerala and found that the application of 0.4 per cent wettable sulfur, 0.004 per cent azadirachtin and 0.05 per cent endosulfan was effective in the management eriophyid mite.

Kannaiyan et al. (2000) reported that spraying of triazophos 40 EC, monocrotophos 36 SL and carbosulfan 25 EC @ 5 ml per litre were found to be highly effective in reducing mite population and recorded higher undamaged buttons of 100, 100 and 73.61 per cent, respectively, four months after the first spray. Another experiment conducted by them at Veppankulam revealed that spraying of either methyl demeton @ 4 ml or monocrotophos @ 1.5 ml per litre at 10 days interval significantly reduced nut damage to 25 per cent as compared to 53 per cent in untreated control.

Ramaraju et al. (2000) observed that root feeding of carbosulfan @ 15 ml + 15 ml of water resulted in the highest reduction of 79.09 to 89.87 per cent in mite population followed by profenophos @ 15 ml + 15 ml of water (75.82%) and triazophos @ 15 ml + 15 water (74.13%).

Vidyasagar (2000) reported in pesticide trials conducted at Kasaragod that monocrotophos root feeding @ 10 ml per palm with equal quality of water at maturity interval provided effective control against mite infestation.

Shivaramreddy and Naik (2000) observed that spraying of chemicals viz., dicofol @ 6 ml per litre of water or 0.03 per cent monocrotophos or 0.03 per cent dimethoate twice at monthly interval. Spraying with wettable sulphur 4 g/l twice is also recommended against coconut mite.

Saradamma et al. (2000) reported that spraying of micronized wettable powder formulation of sulfur 0.4 per cent at 5 g per litre of water was effective against coconut mite.

Dey et al. (2001) showed that application of fenazaquin 10 EC administered through roots @ 10 ml per palm reduced the mite population by 83 per cent, whereas spraying the same chemical @ 200 to 250 ml/litre of water gave 92 per cent reduction in the mite population.

Dey and Somchoudhary (2001) found that root feeding of fenpyroximate 5 EC at 10 ml per palm reduced population by 90.24 per cent while spraying palm with same chemical at 1.0 ml/litre of water gave 80 per cent reduction in mite population.

Trunk injection of monocrotophos (60%) controlled the A. guerreronis upto 80 to 100 per cent, but the effectiveness lasted only for 1.5 months (Fernando et al., 2002).

Field trails conducted during Aug-Nov 1999, with Hexythiazox alone and in combinations with abamectin, fenbutatin, carbosulfon, sulfur, bromopropylate and fenpyroximate revealed that the highest mite control was obtained with hexythiazox, in combination with fenpyroximate, sulfur and abamectin when applied starting from the time of flower opening (Anon., 2002).

Nair et al. (2002) studied the seasonal abundance, extent of damage and management of mite and reported that the mite can be best managed by spraying of pesticides like monocrotophos, dicofol and methyldemeton and the botanical pesticide (2% neem oil garlic mixture).

Natarajan et al. (2002) showed that spraying of triazophos 40 EC 5 ml/l, methyl demeton 25 EC 4 ml/l or monocrotophos 36 SL 1.5 ml/l significantly reduced mite population and also suggested root feeding of monocrotophos 15 ml with 15 ml of water per tree with repeated application at short interval.

Sujata et al. (2004a) conducted field trial in ARS, Ambajipeta through root feeding using monocrotophos, fenobucarb, fipronil @ 20 ml + 20 ml water respectively, fenazaquin @ 1 ml + 10 ml water and acetamiprid @ 0.5 + 10 ml water. Results revealed that monocrotophos was the most effective treatment with 89 per cent decrease in mite population followed by fenazaquin with 78 per cent decrease in mite population.

Among the different pesticides studied i.e. monocrotophos @ 0.2 ml + 2 ml water/bunch, azadirachtin @ 1 ml + 1 ml water/bunch, azadirachtin @ 1 ml + 1 ml/water/bunch, NSKE @ 2 ml/bunch, abamectin @ 0.1 ml + 2 ml water/bunch and milbemectin @ 0.1 ml + 2 ml water/bunch, only mocorotophos could cause upto 100 per cent mortality of the coconut eriophyid mite. Though some of the other pesticides studied are very effective acaricides (e.g. abamectin and milbemectin), none could cause more than 5 per cent mortality (Mallik et al., 2005).

2.3 DEVELOPMENT OF SUITABLE SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION OF CHEMICAL IN THE FORM OF SPRAY AND ROOT FEEDING AGAINST THE MITE

Ramaraju et al. (1999) reported that root feeding of monocrotophos @ 15 ml once in 45 days in effective in reducing mite population.

The coconut perianth mite A. guerreronis could be managed by giving three spays i.e. I spray - April to May, II spray – September to October, III spray – December to January (Anon., 2002).

Sujata et al. (2004b) carried out root feeding two times during the year 2003, i.e. in March and September and results reveal that fenpyroximate 5 per cent EC (10 ml + 10 ml 1% urea solution) is the most effective treatment on all the days of observation (1, 3 and 7 DARF) and all other insecticides i.e. monocrotophos 10 ml + 10 ml 1 per cent urea solution, triazophos (20 ml + 20 ml water) and dicofol 15 ml + 15 ml 1 per cent urea solution were less effective on all the days of study.

III. MATERIAL AND METHODS

Studies on population dynamics of coconut perianth mite, Aceria guerreronis Keifer, evaluation of different pesticides and biopesticides for their efficiency and development of suitable schedule of application as spraying and or root feeding of monocrotophos were carried out during 2003-04 at Dharwad. The laboratory studies were carried out at the Department of Agricultural Entomology, College of Agriculture, Dharwad. The details of the experiments with respect to methodology followed and materials used are presented below.

3.1 SURVEILLANCE OF COCONUT MITE AROUND DHARWAD

The eriophyid mite populations during July 2003 to July 2004 were recorded. Three coconut gardens were selected around Dharwad for recording mite population. The coconut gardens consisted of Arsikere tall variety of 15-20 years old.

Five coconut trees were selected from each garden for collecting sample nuts. The bunch bearing newly fertilized nutlets was considered one month old bunch and each preceeding bunch was considered a month older than the previous one. Three nuts of four months old were plucked from selected trees in each garden. Nuts were brought to the laboratory for recording the active mite population and egg stages. The perianths were removed and observations were made on three spots on surface of the nut under the perianth. Then, three spots on inner surface of the three inner most perianths were observed in an area of 28.28 mm² under stereo binocular microscope.

3.1.2 Per cent damaged nuts

In each garden, five matured bunches from selected five trees were observed to record the damaged nuts due to mite infestation. Percentage of damage nuts was calculated based on total number of nuts and infested nuts. The damaged nuts were graded as Grade 1 – Nuts without damage (0%), Grade 2 – Nuts with slight damage of 1 to 10 per cent surface showing damage symptoms, Grade 3 – Nuts with 11-25 per cent significant surface, Grade 4 – Nuts with severe mite damage of 25-50 per cent, Grade 5 – Nuts heavily damaged, very much reduced in size and often severely distorted showing 51-100 per cent damage (Julia and Maria, 1979).

The weather parameters such as maximum and minimum temperature, morning and evening relative humidity, rainfall and wind speed were obtained from Meteorological Observatory, Agricultural Research Station (ARS), Hebballi, Dharwad. Then the population fluctuations of active stages of mite and egg stages were correlated with weather parameters.

3.2 EVALUATION OF PESTICIDES AND BIOPESTICIDES AGAINST THE MITE

3.2.1 Extraction of plant products

The aqueous extracts of neem seed kernel, turmeric and garlic were prepared in the laboratory. There were nine trees for each treatment. About 13.5 litres of extracts was prepared for each plant products. The preparation of the plant extract are mentioned below.

3.2.1.1 Aqueous extract of NSKE

Six hundred and seventy five grams of neem seed kernel powder was soaked in three liters of water overnight, then filtered through muslin cloth. The suspension was made up 13.5 litres to get 5 per cent concentration of the suspension which was used for spraying under field condition.

3.2.1.2 Aqueous extract of turmeric

Two hundred and seventy grams of turmeric powder was soaked in about three liters of water and kept over night. Then squeezed through muslin cloth and the extract was made upto 13.5 litres to get 2 per cent concentration and suspension was used for spraying.

3.2.1.3 Aqueous extract of KK products

Two hundred and seventy grams of products was initially made to dissolve in two liters of water, then the quantity was made upto 13.5 liters to get 2 per cent concentration and used for spraying.

3.2.1.4 Aqueous extract of garlic

Two hundred and seventy grams of garlic (crushed) was soaked in three liters of water overnight and then filtered through muslin cloth to this soap emulsion and neem oil (3%) was added and made upto 13.5 litres.

3.2.2 Under laboratory condition

A laboratory experiment was conducted to know the efficacy of some pesticides and biopesticides (Plate 1).

The treatments were fenazaquin, propargite, monocrotophos, dicofol, oxydemeton methyl, phosolone, wettable sulfur, triazophos, floramite, neem oil, neemazal, turmeric, sweet flag, NSKE and biocare. Totally the experiment consisted of 16 treatments with 3 replications. The experiment was carried out using plastic trays filled with fine sand for placing the treated nuts.

Four months old infested nuts were brought to laboratory and were placed in plastic trays. Three nuts were taken for each treatment. Trays containing sand were moistened regularly and each treatment was imposed with respective chemical and botanical. Treatments were imposed using syringe. Observations on mite counts were taken at 1 day before spraying (DBS), 2 day after spraying (DAS) and 7 DAS. Among three nuts per treatment, each nut was taken at each interval and observed for mite population. First the perianth was removed and observations were made on three spots on surface of the nut and then three spots on inner surface of three inner most perianths in an area of 28.28 mm² under stereo binocular microscope.

3.2.3 Under field condition

Based on laboratory study, pesticides and biopesticides were selected for field evaluation. Field experiment was conducted at Dasankoppa village which is 20 km away from MARS, Dharwad. The trees were in the age group of 10-15 years old and 10-12 m height. The experiment was laid out in randomized block design with 3 palms in each treatment and replicated thrice. The pesticides and biopesticides used for evaluation are listed in table 1 and additional four more new products i.e. KK products were directly evaluated under field conditions.

The rocker sprayer was used for spraying. For each tree one and half litres of spray solution was used. Three sprays were given to infested trees at two and half months interval. Observations were recorded at 1 day before, 7, 14, 21 and 28 days after spray. Three infested nuts from fourth bunch/treatment were collected and brought to the laboratory and active stages and egg stages of mite were recorded. From each nut three inner surfaces of the inner perianths and three sliced nut surface areas below the perianth were selected for taking observations. Observations on the mite and egg population were recorded using stereo binocular microscope in an area of 28.28 mm². Mite reduction over untreated control was also calculated. After three treatment imposition, nuts of 5

th, 6

th, 7

th and 8

th bunches were graded

into different categories and per cent damaged nuts were also worked out.

Plate 1. Nuts for evaluation under laboratory condition

Table 1. Treatment details of pesticides and biopesticides in the management of A. guerreronis under field condition

Sl. No. Treatments Dosage

1. Fenazaquin 10 EC 2 ml/l

2. Propargite 57 EC 2 ml/l

3. Monocrotophos 36 SL 4 ml/l

4. Dicofol 18.5 EC 4 ml/l

5. Oxydemeton methyl 25 EC 4 ml/l

6. Phosolone 35 EC 2 ml/l

7. Wettable sulfur 80 WP 5 g/l

8. Triazophos 40 EC 4 ml/l

9. Floramite 2.5 g/l

10. Turmeric 2.0%

11. NSKE 5.0%

12. KKG-56 2.0%

13. KNG-47 2.0%

14. KKS-56 2.0%

15. KNS-47 2.0%

16. Nimbicidine 5 ml/l

17. Neem oil 3.0%

18. Sweet flag 2.0%

19. Garlic + Neem oil 2.0% + 2.0%

20. Biocare 4 ml/l

21. Untreated check -

3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION OF SPRAY AND ROOT FEEDING

A field experiment was laid out by following randomized block design in Navalur near Dharwad. The experiment had nine treatments and six plants were taken for each treatment. The trees were numbered before carrying out the spraying and root feeding. The details of application of spraying and root feeding are given in table 2.

3.3.1 Spraying

Twenty four palms were selected for imposing the treatments in the form of spray schedule and 6 palms were selected in each spray schedule. Monthly observations on stages of mites and eggs were taken by bringing nuts to laboratory. Two nuts were taken from fourth bunch of each tree. From each nut three inner surface of the inner perianths and three sliced nut areas below the perianth were selected for taking observations through stereo binocular microscope. For spraying monocrotophos @ 4 ml per liter was used.

3.3.2 Root feeding

Twenty four palms were selected for root feeding with 6 palms in each schedule. Monocrotophos was used for root feeding @ 10 ml with equal quantify of water pre tree. Brick red coloured roots were selected for which a slant cut was given without further damage. Then a small polythene bag (15 cm x 10 cm) filled with monocrotophos solution was tied to the root in such away that tip of root touched the bottom of bag inside. The bag was tied with a string and then observed on next day for its absorption. Two nuts from such trees were brought to the laboratory. Observations on active stages and eggs of mite were taken at monthly intervals on nut surface and perianth.

3.4 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Data on seasonal incidence of egg and mite population were correlated with weather parameters using MSTAT programme. Data collected on mite and egg populations and per cent damaged nuts in the field experiments concerned to the management of the mite using botanicals, biorationals and chemicals and in development of suitable scheduling were subjected to ANOVA test applying RBD programme after arcsin transformation and damage grading were also subjected to ANOVA test using RBD without transformation.

Table 2. Treatment details of scheduled application of spray and root feeding

Sl. No. Treatments Application period

1. 2 sprays/year April and October

2. 3 sprays/year April, October and December

3. 4 sprays/year January, April, July and October

4. 6 sprays/year January, March, May, July, September and November

5. 2 root feedings/year April and October

6. 3 root feedings/year April, October and December

7. 4 root feedings/year January, April, July and October

8. 6 root feedings/year January, March, May, July, September and November

9. Untreated check -

IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Results of the investigations carried out on coconut perianth mite, Aceria guerreronis

Keifer with regard to surveillance, effect of pesticides and biopesticides and development of suitable schedule in the management of mite under field conditions are presented below.

4.1 SURVEILLANCE OF COCONUT MITE AROUND DHARWAD

Observations on the seasonal incidence of coconut mite in terms of number of mites (on nut surface and perianth) and number of eggs (on nut surface and perianth) are presented in Table 3 (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).

4.1.1 Mite population

During the course of surveillance the mite population on the nut surface ranged from 50.01 to 105.73 mites per 28.28 mm² area. The mite population during the period from second fortnight of July to first fortnight of November ranged from 50.20 to 58.89 per 28.28 mm² area. A sudden increase in mite population was seen in second fortnight of December (68.92). Then onwards it increased upto second fortnight of January (84.26). The mite population decreased during second fortnight of February (72.29) and then started increasing and reached another peak during second fortnight of May (105.73) decreased afterwards.

The mite population on perianth fluctuated between a low of 18.28 mites (second fortnight of June) to a high of 58.52 (second fortnight of May). During remaining months mite population on perianth was more or less constant. On an average the mite population on nut surface was more (69.80 mites) compared to perianth (30.41).

4.1.2 Egg population

On the nut surface the egg population ranged from first fortnight of July 2004 (38.81) to second fortnight of May 2004 (88.68) mites per 28.28 mm² area. The first peak occurrence of eggs of eriophyid mite was seen during first fortnight of September (75.61) then the second peak was seen during second fortnight of May (88.68). However the egg population was low during second fortnight of July (38.81) followed by first fortnight of December (42.24) (Table 3).

Relatively less number of eggs were recorded on coconut perianth (31.61) compared to nut surface (57.48). On the inner surface of the perianth minimum egg load was recorded in second fortnight of August (18.67) followed by second fortnight of November (19.68). More number of eggs were recorded in the first fortnight of the May (49.05).


The data presented in Table 3 indicated that the per cent damaged nuts varied from 85.69 to 98.81. The per cent damaged nut was relatively higher throughout the year with little variation. The average damaged nut recorded was 92.51 per cent.

4.1.4 Relation between mite and egg populations and weather parameters

The data presented in Table 4 indicated that maximum temperature had positive and significant (r=0.498) effect on the mite population and rainfall had significant negative (r= -0.352) association with mite population including eggs on perianth. However, relationship of mites recorded on nut surface with evening relative humidity (r = -0.370) and eggs observed on nut surface with wind speed (r = -0.260) were significant and negative whereas remaining weather parameters had no significant influence either on the mite or on egg population.

4.2 EFFICACY OF PESTICIDES AND BIOPESTICIDES UNDER LABORATORY CONDITIONS

The results (Table 5 and Fig. 3) on evaluating of efficacy of biopesticides and pesticides carried under laboratory conditions showed that there was significant difference among treatments during different days of observations taken. Observations were recorded on second, fifth and seventh day after treatment.

Table 3. Surveillance of coconut mite during 2003-04 at Dharwad

No. of active mites/28.28 mm² area of

No. of eggs/28.28 mm² area of Month / fortnight

Nut surface Perianth Nut surface Perianth

Damaged nuts (%)

2003

July – II 50.01 22.33 59.62 21.96 90.80

August – I 50.20 23.54 60.75 22.34 91.10

August – II 54.52 24.62 60.88 18.67 85.69

September – I 52.34 25.24 75.61 36.47 92.61

September – II 53.09 25.38 64.09 36.85 90.46

October – I 56.28 22.36 60.82 38.64 93.32

October – II 54.31 26.41 59.43 36.80 94.06

November – I 58.89 39.42 52.90 20.64 90.81

November – II 60.90 36.27 44.31 19.68 91.74

December – I 62.24 31.65 42.24 31.50 96.53

December – II 68.92 32.54 50.09 39.42 95.50

2004

January – I 78.12 29.90 52.81 39.01 95.61

January – II 84.26 35.68 49.88 39.64 92.34

February – I 82.32 32.64 44.81 24.28 89.90

February – II 72.29 24.38 46.92 20.00 87.85

March – I 72.80 38.34 55.54 30.38 90.91

March – II 76.25 36.54 58.49 32.56 93.78

April – I 89.91 34.60 70.21 41.15 95.21

April – II 88.54 32.60 66.82 42.35 97.82

May – I 94.58 38.52 78.16 49.05 98.81

May – II 105.73 58.52 88.68 47.09 96.90

June – I 70.62 20.39 50.08 25.82 89.42

June – II 68.64 18.28 47.59 24.31 85.69

July – I 56.92 19.64 38.81 20.09 88.89

Average 69.80 30.41 57.48 31.61 92.51

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

July

– II

Augus

t – I

Augus

t – II

Septe

mbe

r – I

Septe

mbe

r – II

Oct

ober

– I

Oct

ober

– II

Nov

embe

r – I

Nov

embe

r – II

Dec

embe

r – I

Dec

embe

r – II

Janu

ary

– I

Janu

ary

– II

Febru

ary

– I

Febru

ary

– II

Mar

ch –

I M

arch

– II

Apr

il –

I A

pril

– II

May

– I

May

– II

June

– I

June

– II

July

– I

No. of active mites/28.28 mm² area of nut surface

No. of eggs/28.28 mm² area of nut surface

Month / fortnight

2003 2004

Fig. 1. Surveillance of coconut mite on nut surface during 2003-04 at Dharwad

Fig. 1. Surveillance of coconut mite on nut surface during 2003-04 Dharwad

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

July

– II

Augus

t – I

Augus

t – II

S

epte

mbe

r – I

Septe

mbe

r – II

Oct

ober

– I

Oct

ober

– II

Nov

embe

r – I

Nov

embe

r – II

Dec

embe

r – I

Dec

embe

r – II

Janu

ary

– I

Janu

ary

– II

Febru

ary

– I

Febru

ary

– II

Mar

ch –

I M

arch

– II

Apr

il –

I A

pril

– II

May

– I

May

– II

June

– I

June

– II

July

– I

No. of active mites/28.28 mm² area of perianth

No. of eggs/28.28 mm² area of perianth

Month / fortnight

2003 2004

Fig. 2. Surveillance of coconut mite on perianth during 2003-04 at Dharwad

Fig. 2. Surveillance of coconut mite on perianth during 2003-04 at Dharwad

Table 4. Correlation between eriophyid mite incidence and weather parameters

Correlation coefficient (r)

No. of mites/nut No. of eggs/nut Sl. No.

Weather parameters

Nut surface Perianth Nut surface Perianth

1. Maximum temperature (°C) 0.498** 0.121 0.120 0.116

2. Minimum temperature (°C) 0.031 0.120 0.108 0.126

3. Morning relative humidity (%) -0.088 0.072 -0.179 0.049

4. Evening relative humidity (%) -0.370** 0.015 0.046 -0.030

5. Rainfall (mm) -0.352 0.049 0.012 0.236*

6. Wind speed (km/ha) 0.135 0.029 -0.260* -0.070

‘r’ value is 0.203 at 5 per cent level; 0.263 at 1 per cent level * Significant at 5 per cent level ** Significant at 1 per cent level

Table 5. Evaluation of pesticides and biopesticides under laboratory conditions

Sl. No. Treatments 2 DAT Per cent reduction

5 DAT Per cent reduction

7 DAT Per cent reduction

1. Fenazaquin 10 EC 75.50i 31.72

a 50.20

g 47.27

a 24.62

g 72.84

a

2. Propargite 57 EC 89.70efgh

18.88d 70.25

d 26.21

e 40.00

d 55.88

e

3. Monocrotophos 36 SL 85.70gh

22.50c 60.25

ef 36.71

c 25.50

g 71.87

a

4. Dicofol 18.5 EC 80.50hi 27.21

b 60.77

ef 36.16

c 30.66

efg 66.18

bc

5. Oxydemeton methyl 25 EC 80.60bcde

27.11b 65.50

de 31.19

d 32.18

ef 64.51

c

6. Phosolone 35 EC 99.20cdefg

10.29f 86.42

bc 9.22

g 75.09

b 17.19

g

7. Wettable sulfur 80 WP 90.60cdefg

18.07d 80.62

bc 15.34

f 70.22

bc 22.56

f

8. Triazophos 40 EC 95.00bcdefg

14.09e 81.28

c 14.62

f 74.68

b 17.64

g

9. Floramite 98.18bcdef

11.22ef 90.46

c 4.97

h 86.92

a 4.140

h

10. Neem oil 88.50fgh

19.97cd

60.75ab

36.18c 35.51

de 60.84

d

11. Neemazal 89.70efgh

18.88d 70.25

ef 26.20

e 40.06

d 55.82

e

12. Turmeric 100.82b 8.83

f 89.29

d 6.20

h 67.82

c 25.20

f

13. Sweet flag 99.65bcd

9.89f 90.12

ab 5.34

h 76.41

b 15.73

g

14. NSKE 90.28defg

18.36d 56.41

ab 40.74

b 28.66

fg 68.39

b

15. Biocare 100.26bc

9.34f 92.10

fg 3.25

h 88.43

a 2.48

hi

16. Untreated check 110.59a - 95.20

ab - 90.68

a -

CD at 5% 8.59 2.96 6.63a 2.77 5.76 3.47

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fenaz

aqui

n 10

EC

Propa

rgite

57

EC

Mon

ocro

toph

os 3

6 SL

Dic

ofol

18.

5 E

C

Oxy

dem

eton

met

hyl 2

5 EC

Pho

solo

ne 3

5 EC

Wet

tabl

e su

lfur 8

0 W

P

Triazo

phos

40

EC

Flora

mite

N

eem

oil

Nee

maz

alTur

mer

ic

Sw

eet f

lag

NS

KE

Bioca

re

Unt

reat

ed c

heck

2 DAT 5 DAT 7 DAT

Treatments

Fig. 3. Evaluation of pesticides and biopesticides under laboratory conditions

Me

an

eg

g p

op

ula

tio

n

Fig. 3. Evaluation of pesticides and biopesticides under laboratory conditions

Observations recorded during second day after treatment showed that pesticides were significantly superior over biopesticides. Among the different treatments, fenazaquin was significantly superior (75.50) overall other treatments in recording lowest mite population and was on par with dicofol (80.50) and wettable sulphur (80.60). Among the botanicals Azadirachtin (89.70), NSKE (90.28) and neemoil (88.50) were superior over other botanical treatments.

The data in per cent reduction over untreated control (UTC) showed that fenazaquin was significantly superior with maximum reduction of mite population to the tune of 31.72 per cent. It was followed by dicofol (27.21%) and wettable sulphur (27.11%).

Observations recorded during 5 DAT indicate that fenazaquin was significantly superior over all treatments by recording least mite population (50.20) and was on par with NSKE 5 per cent (56.41). The next best treatments were found to be monocrotophos (60.25), dicofol (60.77) and neem oil (60.75).

Fenazaquin was significantly superior with maximum per cent reduction of mites (47.27%) over UTC. The next best treatment was found to be NSKE 5 per cent (40.74) in reducing mite population to maximum extent over UTC.

Similarly during 7 DAT, results revealed that, once again fenqzaquin was significantly superior (24.62) over all treatments by recording minimum mite population. It was on par with monocrotophos (25.50), dicofol (30.66) and NSKE 5 per cent (28.66). The next best treatment was found to be wettable sulphur (32.18). Least effective treatments was found to be biocare (88.43) and floramite (86.92) which were significantly inferior and on par with UTC (90.68).

In per cent reduction of mite population over UTC, fenazaquin was significantly superior with highest reduction of mites (72.84%) over UTC and was on par with monocrotophos (71.87%). The next best treatments were found to be dicofol (66.18%) and NSKE 5 per cent (68.39%).

4.2.1 Efficacy of pesticides on adult mites under field conditions

The pesticides were screened for the management of active stages A. guerreronis in coconut and the data is presented in Table 6 to 8 (Fig. 4).

First imposition of treatments

The data presented in Table 6 revealed that there was no significant difference in recording mite population among the treatments a day before spray. However, at seven days after spray (DAS) all the pesticides tested were found to be significantly superior over untreated control. Among them fenazaquin recorded significantly lowest (68.67 mites/28.28 mm² area) mite population but was on par with monocrotophos (69.33), dicofol (72.22), wettable sulphur (74.00), propargite (74.78) and oxydemeton methyl (75.22) whereas floramite recorded highest mite population (81.22) and was comparable with triazophos (76.78) and phosolone (77.67) but superior over untreated control.

Per cent reduction of mite over untreated control indicated that fenazaquin was superior treatment (34.38 per cent) which was comparable with monocrotophos (33.64), dicofol (30.87) and wettable sulphur (29.29). Least effective treatment was found to be floramite (22.33%) which was comparable with phosolone (25.63%) and triazophos (26.46%).

At 14 DAS fenazaquin was significantly superior over all other treatments (44.33 mites/28.28 mm² area) which was on par with monocrotophos (47.64) and dicofol (49.00) followed by wettable sulphur (55.89) and propargite (59.08). Least efficient chemical was floramite (75.22) but was superior over untreated control and comparable with other treatments.

In per cent reduction, maximum reduction on mites was noticed in fenazaquin (56.42%) which was on par with monocrotophos (53.96%) and dicofol (52.09%) and followed by wettable sulphur (45.75%) and propargite (41.45%). Minimum reduction was seen in floramite (26.92).

At 21 DAS, fenazaquin maintained its superiority by recording least population (25.64) which was on par with monocrotophos (26.67) and dicofol (30.13). Floramite recorded

Table 6. Efficacy of acaricides and insecticides against active stages of mite A. guerreronis during I spray

Number of mites per 28.28 mm² area

Sl. No.

Treatments Dosage 1 DBS 7 DAS % reduction over UTC

14 DAS % reduction over UTC



1 Fenazaquin 10 EC 2 ml/l 89.75a 68.67

e 34.38

a 44.33

g 56.42

a 25.64

f 72.18

a 33.90

f 65.84

a

2 Propargite 57 EC 2 ml/l 86.50a 74.78

bcde 28.61

ab 59.08

ef 41.45

cd 41.93

d 57.09

cd 42.37

e 57.36

a

3 Monocrotophos 36 SL 4 ml/l 88.52a 69.33

de 33.64

a 47.64

g 53.96

a 26. 26.67

f 72.07

a 36.14

f 63.56

a

4 Dicofol 18.5 EC 4 ml/l 88.64a 72.22

cde 30.87

ab 49.00

g 52.09

ab 30.13

ef 68.87

ab 36.93

f 62.79

a

5 Oxydemeton methyl 25 EC

4 ml/l 85.00a 75.22

bcde 28.06

abc 63.52

de 39.27

de 47.47

c 51.54

de 49.25

d 60.65

a

6 Phosolone 35 EC 2 ml/l 85.99a 77.67

bc 25.63

bc 70.56

bc 32.96

fg 55.76

b 41.95

fg 54.62

c 44.93

b

7 Wettable sulphur 80 WP 5 g/l 87.25a 74.00

bcde 29.29

ab 55.89

f 45.75

bc 34.57

e 63.05

bc 37.08

f 62.72

a

8 Triazophos 40 EC 4 ml/l 84.33a 76.78

bcd 26.46

bc 66.74

cd 36.87

ef 50.04

c 48.71

ef 50.64

cd 48.95

b

9 Floramite 2.5 g/l 89.16a 81.22

b 22.33

c 75.22

b 26.92

g 60.29

b 37.21

g 65.28

b 34.18

c

10 Untreated control - 90.33a 103

a - 104.78

a - 97.00

a - 99.20

a -

CD at 5% NS 6.85 3.74 5.83 4.54 4.84 4.26 4.96 4.25

CV (%) 5.17 5.01 5.34 5.12 6.02 5.09 6.08 5.09

DBS= Days before spraying; DAS = Days after spraying; In a column means followed by same alphabet donot differ significantly by DMRT (P=0.05)

significantly highest mite population (60.29) but was statistically on par with phosolone (55.76).

Incase of per cent reduction of mites over untreated control same trend of superiority was noticed with fenazaquin (72.18%), monocrotophos (72.07%) and dicofol (68.87%) which were on par with each other. Once again floramite was significantly inferior (37.21%) but was on par with phosolone (41.95%).

At 28 DAS, fenazaquin (33.90), monocrotophos (36.14) and dicofol (36.93) were on par with each other and maintained their efficacy in reducing the mite population whereas floramite recorded significantly highest mite population (65.28).

Data recorded on per cent reduction showed that all treatments were on par with each other except for phosolone (44.93%), triazophos (48.95%) and floramite (34.18%) which recorded significantly less reduction of mites.

Second imposition of treatments

A day before second treatment imposition there was no significant difference among the treatments with respect to mite population (Table 7).

Seven DAS, fenazaquin maintained its superiority by recording minimum mite population of 68.44 mites/28.28 mm² area and was on par with monocrotophos (72.44) and dicofol (74.44) as against UTC which recorded significantly highest mite population (115.00). However, floramite (89.72), oxydemeton methyl (86.52), triazophos (88.22) and phosolone (88.82) were superior over UTC and on par with each other.

Per cent reduction of mite over control was significantly highest in fenazaquin (40.39%) but was on par with monocrotophos (36.95%) and dicofol (35.27%), followed by propargite (30.53) and wettable sulphur (33.08%) whereas, lowest per cent reduction was observed incase of floramite (23.53%) and was on par with oxydemeton methyl (21.91%), triazophos (23.22%) and phosolone (24.70%).

At 14 DAS, fenazaquin was proven to be most effective treatment by recording significantly lowest mite population (44.00) and was on par with monocrotophos (47.67), dicofol (49.33), wettable sulphur (51.89) and propargite (53.48). Once again floramite was least effective chemical with highest mite population (64.53) and was on par with triazophos (60.00) and phosolone (61.22).

In per cent reduction, fenazaquin (57.68%) was significantly superior and was on par with monocrotophos (54.10%) and dicofol (52.49%). The next best treatments were wettable sulphur (50.10) and propargite (48.63%). Minimum reduction of mites was noticed in floramite (38.05%).

With the advancement of time i.e., at 21 DAS, mite population in different treatments indicated decreasing trend. Among the treatments evaluated, fenazaquin was found significantly superior over other treatments (22.33). The next best treatments were monocrotophos (28.91) and dicofol (34.36). Remaining were on par with each other except floramite (56.72) but was superior over untreated control (UTC). With respect to per cent reduction of mites, fenazaquin gave 73.87 per cent reduction in mite population, which was significantly superior and statistically on par with monocrotophos (66.17) whereas, lowest per cent reduction was noticed in floramite (33.74).

The effectiveness of all the chemicals was observed upto 21 DAS but results were different at 28 DAS. However fenazaquin maintained its superiority by reducing mite population to 34.56 mites per 28.28 mm² area and was on par with monocrotophos (37.28) and dicofol (40.09). Next best treatment was wettable sulphur (43.74). Floramite was less effective treatment which recorded maximum mite population (60.04). In per cent reduction, fenazaquin once again maintained its superiority (62.59%) in reducing mite population which was comparable with monocrotophos (59.61%) and dicofol (56.60%). Once again floramite was least effective with least reduction of mites (35.04%) and was on par with phosolone (40.68%).

Table 7. Efficacy of acaricides and insecticides against active stages of mite A. guerreronis during II spray


Sl. No.

Treatments Dosage

1 DBS 7 DAS %

reduction over UTC

14 DAS %

reduction over UTC

21 DAS %

reduction over UTC

28 DAS %

reduction over UTC


e 40.39

a 44.00

e 57.68

a 22.33

g 73.87

a 34.56

f 62.59

a


cd 30.53

bc 53.48

de 48.63

bcd 40.50

d 52.64

cde 46.42

cd 49.75

cde


de 36.95

ab 47.67

ef 54.10

ab 28.91

f 66.17

ab 37.28

f 59.61

ab

4 Dicofol 18.5 EC 4 ml/l 87.15a 74.44

de 35.27

ab 49.33

ef 52.49

abc 34.36

e 59.86

bc 40.09

ef 56.60

abc


4 ml/l 82.09a 86.52

b 21.91

d 56.72

cd 45.54

cde 42.70

cd 49.99

cde 49.70

c 46.20

def


bc 24.70

cd 61.22

bc 41.12

ef 40.50

d 42.74

e 46.42

cd 40.68

fg


d 33.08

ab 51.89

dc 50.10

bc 38.52

d 55.00

cd 43.74

de 52.63

bcd


b 23.22

d 60.00

bc 42.33

def 45.93

c 46.33

de 51.24

c 44.50

ef

9 Floramite 2.5 g/l 88.99a 89.72

b 23.53

d 64.53

b 38.05

f 56.72

b 33.74

f 60.04

b 35.04

g

10 Untreated control - 89.99a 115.00

a - 104.05

a 85.60

a 92.40

a

CD at 5% NS 7.31 4.29 5.70 3.86 3.91 5.31 5.38 4.13

CV (%) 5.08 5.10 5.61 5.02 5.14 6.09 6.16 6.00

DBS= Days before spraying; DAS = Days after spraying; In a column means followed by same alphabet donot differ significantly by DMRT (P=0.05) \

Table 8. Efficacy of acaricides and insecticides against active stages of mite A. guerreronis during III spray


Sl. No.

Treatments Dosage

1 DBS 7 DAS %

reduction over UTC

14 DAS %

reduction over UTC

21 DAS %

reduction over UTC

28 DAS %

reduction over UTC


d 40.54

a 49.74

f 46.58

a 23.95

f 61.61

a 30.38

e 58.25

a


bc 35.07

ab 57.34

cde 42.91

a 36.73

de 48.78

cd 41.8

c 48.84

abc


cd 39.79

a 52.95

ef 46.13

a 31.46

e 57.48

ab 35.24

d 54.96

ab

4 Dicofol 18.5 EC 4 ml/l 91.35a 64.73

cd 37.87

ab 55.75

de 45.89

a 33.91

e 54.21

abc 37.6

cd 53.93

abc


4 ml/l 90.1a 69.27

bc 33.48

ab 59.67

bcd 41.45

a 41.32

cd 48.76

cd 48.61

c 46.82

bc


bc 29.86

b 62.96

bc 39.84

a 54.62

b 45.46

d 55.8

b 44.43

c


cd 37.83

ab 56.36

de 45.48

a 34.55

e 52.42

bcd 38.21

cd 53.37

abc


bc 32.73

ab 61.5

bcd 40.68

a 44.92

c 46.14

d 55.55

b 46.42

bc

9 Floramite 2.5 g/l 84.31a 75.2

b 29.75

b 64.81

b 38.96

b 58.51

b 40.17

e 58.31

b 44.32

c


a - 101.35

a - 100.67

a - 99.83

a -

CD at 5% - 2.49 1.51 1.89 1.81 1.79 1.4 1.59 1.74

CV (%) NS 7.38 4.52 5.63 5.44 5.33 4.2 4.73 5.22


Third imposition of treatments

A day before the imposition of third treatment, non significant difference was observed among all the treatments (Table 8). At seven DAS all treatments were significantly superior over untreated control, but among different treatments fenazaquin once again proved its effectively by reducing the population to 57.39 mites (28.28 mm² area) and was on par with monocrotophos (64.23), dicofol (64.73) and wettable sulphur (65.23). Remaining treatments were on par with each other except for floramite (75.20) which was significantly least effective chemical but superior over untreated control.

In per cent reduction, all treatments were on par except floramite (29.75), which recorded least reduction of mites was on par with phosolone (29.86).

At 14 DAS, fenazaquin was significantly superior by recording least mite population (49.74) and was on par with monocrotophos (52.95). The next best treatments were dicofol (55.75), wettable sulphur (56.36) and propargite (57.34) which were on par with each other. Least effective chemical in recording maximum mite population was found to be floramite (64.81).

All treatments are on par with each other except for floramite (38.96%) in recording the per cent reduction of mites over UTC.

As the days advanced the efficacy of chemicals increased. Fenazaquin showed its efficacy by recording least mite population (23.95) which is significantly superior over all other treatments. The next best treatments were monocrotophos (31.46), dicofol (33.91), wettable sulphur (34.55) and propargite (36.73), which were on par with each other. Floromite (58.51) once again was proved significantly least effective and was on par to phosolone (54.62).

Per cent reduction of mites over UTC indicated that fenazaquin (61.61%) was signficinatly superior and on par with monocrotophos (57.48%) and dicofol (54.21%). Floramite gave least per cent reduction (40.17%) mites, which was significantly inferior over all other treatments.

At 28 DAS, eventhough efficacy of chemicals was reduced to some extent but still fenazaquin maintained its superiority by decreasing its population to 30.38 mites per 28.28 mm² area which was followed by monocrotophos (35.24), dicofol (37.60) and wettable sulphur (38.21) which were on par with each other. Floramite was least superior (58.31) and was on par with triazophos (55.55) and phosolone (55.80).

Per cent reduction of mites in fenazaquin was highest (58.25%) which was on par with monocrotophos (54.96%), dicofol (53.93%), wettable sulphur (53.37%) and propargite (48.84%). Least effective chemical was floramite (44.32%).

4.2.1 Efficacy of pesticides on egg stage under field conditions

Pesticides were evaluated against egg stages of A. guerreronis and the data is presented in Tables 9 to 11 (Fig. 5).


The pretreatment count on egg population of perianth mite gave non-significant difference among the treatments (Table 9). At 7 DAS, all treatments except for UTC were found to be statistically on par with each other with respect to per cent reduction, fenazaquin was significantly superior (30.80) and on par with monocrotophos (30.50). Remaining treatments were on par with each other except for floramite (23.00) which was significantly inferior.

At 14 DAS, fenazaquin was confirmed as significantly superior treatment with minimum egg population of 59.47 per 28.28 mm² area and was on par with all other treatments except for floramite which recorded maximum egg population (68.50).

The percentage of reduction of mites over UTC indicated that fenazaquin was significantly superior with maximum per cent reduction of mites (43.96) over UTC and was on par with all other treatments except for floramite (35.44) which recorded least reduction of mites.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fenazaquin 10 EC Propargite 57 EC Monocrotophos 36

SL

Dicofol 18.5 EC Oxydemeton

methyl 25 EC

Phosolone 35 EC Wettable sulphur

80 WP

Triazophos 40 EC Floramite Untreated control

I spray II spray III spray

Treatments

Fig. 4. Efficacy of acaricides and insecticides against active stages of mite A. guerrenonis under field conditions

Me

an

active m

ite

po

pu

latio

n

Fig. 4. Efficacy of acaricides and insecticides against active stages of mine A. guerrenonis under field conditions

Table 9. Efficacy of acaricides and insecticides against eggs of mite A. guerreronis during I spray

Number of eggs per 28.28 mm² area

Sl. No.

Treatments Dosage

1 DBS 7 DAS %

reduction over UTC

14 DAS %

reduction over UTC

21 DAS %

reduction over UTC

28 DAS %

reduction over UTC


b 30.8

a 59.47

c 43.96

a 40.92

e 61.48

a 43.72

e 59.26

a


b 28.46

b 64.63

bc 38.91

a 46.65

cde 56.08

abcd 49.34

cde 53.99

abc


b 30.5

ab 62.83

bc 40.85

a 44.64

e 58.04

ab 45.73

e 57.37

ab

4 Dicofol 18.5 EC 4 ml/l 93.64a 69.53

b 29.05

b 63.65

bc 40.09

a 45.64

de 57.05

abc 46.48

de 56.66

ab


4 ml/l 98.52a 71.11

b 27.56

bc 65.7

bc 38.15

a 47.41

cde 55.36

abcd 53.35

bcd 49.96

bc


b 24.37

bc 66.21

bc 37.67

a 53.34

bc 49.7

bc 57.11

b 46.71

c


b 28.8

b 64.01

bc 39.7

a 46.13

cde 56.59

abcd 46.96

de 56.18

ab


b 24.86

bc 65.98

bc 37.86

a 52.28

bcd 50.55

bcd 55.75

bc 48.04

c

9 Floramite 2.5 g/l 84.33a 75.46

b 23

c 68.5

b 35.44

b 55.32

b 35.55

d 57.32

b 46.52

c


a - 106.51

a - 106.52

a - 107.54

a -

CD at 5% - 2.5 1.91 2.56 1.63 2.26 1.49 2.26 1.36

CV (%) NS 7.42 5.96 7.61 4.88 6.71 4.46 6.72 4.07


At 21 DAS, least mite population was seen in fenazaquin (40.92) which was significantly superior treatment and on par with monocrotophos (44.64), dicofol (45.64), wettable sulphur (46.13), propargite (46.65) and oxydemeton methyl (47.41). Floramite recorded maximum mite population (55.32) which was significantly inferior and on par with triazophos (52.28) and phosolone (53.34).

In per cent reduction over UTC, fenazaquin was superior with maximum per cent reduction of 61.48 and on par with all treatments except floramite (35.54) which is significantly inferior over all others, triazophos (50.55) and phosolone (49.70).

At 28 DAS, similar trend was noticed in recording the mite population and reduction.


A day before the imposition of treatments, the treatments were non-significant (Table 10). Low egg population was recorded with fenazaquin (61.73) which was significantly superior and on par with monocrotophos (62.98), dicofol (63.17), wettable sulphur (64.65) and propargite (65.51) at 7 DAS. Floramite was significantly inferior in recording maximum egg population (76.50) but on par with oxydemeton methyl (71.23), triazophos (73.19) and phosolone (73.53).

In per cent reduction, fenazaquin maintained its superiority by recording highest per cent reduction (37.86) which was significantly superior and on par with monocrotophos (36.61), dicofol (36.42), wettable sulphur (34.90) and propargite (34.05). Least reduction was in floramite (23.01) which was on par with oxydemeton methyl (28.25), triazophos (26.32) and phosolone (25.99).

At 14 DAS, fenazaquin (57.39) was efficient with low egg population and maintained its superiority over all other treatments and was on par with monocrotophos (59.31), dicofol (59.55), wettable sulphur (61.32) and propargite (64.66). All remaining treatments except for untreated control were on par among themselves.

Again in per cent reduction, fenazaquin was significantly superior (46.56) over all others and also on par with others except for floramite (36.97) which was significantly inferior and on par with phosolone (37.21).

At 21 DAS, fenazaquin was evident with lowest egg load and recorded 43.48 eggs per 28.28 mm² which was on par with monocrotophos (44.24), dicofol (44.57), wettable sulphur (47.05) and propargite (47.95). Floramite was inefficient with highest egg population (55.78) which showed on par results with oxydemeton methyl (49.15), triazophos (52.90) and phosolone (54.51) except for UTC.

The data on per cent reduction showed that, Fenazaquin was significantly superior (59.30). Least reduction was seen in floramite (47.71%) which was significantly inferior over others but on par with triazophos (50.52) and phosolone (49.01). Similar results were seen with number of eggs and in per cent reduction of eggs at 28 DAS.


Non-significant difference was seen in the egg count taken one day before the treatment application (Table 11). At 7 DAS, lowest egg population was recorded with fenazaquin (65.90) and was significantly superior over other treatments. Remaining treatments were on par with each other except for phosolone (77.61) and floramite (77.74) which were inferior but significantly superior over untreated control. In per cent reduction, fenazaquin was significantly superior by recording maximum reduction of eggs (44.79%). The next best treatments were monocrotophos (38.41%), dicofol (37.80%) weather sulphur (37.28%), propargite 933.98%) and triazophos (32.50%). Lowest per cent reduction was recorded in case of floramite (27.77%) which was significantly inferior.

Similar trend of results was seen in recording egg population at 14 DAS as was seen at 7 DAS. But with respect to per cent reduction of eggs, fenazaquin was significantly superior (51.01) over all other treatments except floramite (36.06%) which is inferior.

At 14 DAS, fenazaquin was significantly superior (57.47) over other treatments and was on par with remaining treatments except for floramite (65.67) and phasolone (64.73), whereas in per cent reduction, fenazaquin was significantly superior at reducing egg

Table 10. Efficacy of acaricides and insecticides against eggs mite A. guerreronis during II spray


Sl. No.

Treatments Dosage

1 DBS 7 DAS %

reduction over UTC

14 DAS %

reduction over UTC

21 DAS %

reduction over UTC

28 DAS %

reduction over UTC


d 37.86

a 57.39

d 46.56

a 43.48

b 59.30

a 46.20

e 54.56

a


cd 34.05

ab 64.66

bcd 39.84

abc 47.95

bcd 55.12

abc 49.32

cde 51.49

a


d 36.61

a 59.31

cd 44.80

ab 44.24

d 58.59

ab 48.42

de 52.37

a

4 Dicofol 18.5 EC 4 ml/l 88.60a 63.17

d 36.42

a 59.55

cd 44.56

ab 44.57

d 58.27

ab 48.76

cde 52.05

a


4 ml/l 86.00a 71.23

bc 28.25

bc 65.01

bc 39.52

abc 49.15

bcd 53.74

abc 49.59

cde 51.24

a


b 25.99

c 67.46

b 37.21

bc 54.51

bc 49.01

c 52.94

cd 47.93

ab


d 34.90

a 61.32

bcd 42.72

ab 47.05

cd 56.01

abc 48.88

b 51.93

a


b 26.32

c 65.24

bc 39.30

abc 52.90

bc 50.52

bc 52.82

cd 47.93

ab

9 Floramite 2.5 g/l 88.71a 76.50

b 23.01

c 67.65

b 36.97

c 55.78

b 47.71

c 54.13

c 46.77

b


a - 107.78

a - 107.11

a - 101.73

a -

CD at 5% NS 6.11 4.03 6.65 4.22 7.16 4.38 5.02 4.29

CV (%) 5.74 5.06 5.05 5.18 7.63 5.38 5.30 5.29


Table 11. Efficacy of acaricides and insecticides against eggs of mite A. guerreronis during III spray


Sl. No.

Treatments Dosage

1 DBS 7 DAS %

reduction over UTC

14 DAS %

reduction over UTC

21 DAS %

reduction over UTC



c 44.79

a 57.47

d 51.01

a 38.96

g 76.07

a 44.20

c 69.58

a


bc 33.98

bc 61.30

bcd 43.43

bc 51.78

cde 63.46

bc 54.36

b 58.16

ab


c 38.41

b 57.96

cd 47.78

ab 43.22

fg 68.73

ab 47.69

c 64.70

a

4 Dicofol 18.5 EC 4 ml/l 89.64a 68.72

c 37.80

b 58.23

cd 44.97

abc 46.49

ef 66.15

abc 48.69

c 62.34

ab


4 ml/l 88.01a 72.61

bc 33.54

bc 63.00

bcd 41.11

bcd 51.88

cde 58.92

bc 56.23

b 51.39

bc


b 30.76

c 64.73

bc 37.95

cd 55.29

bc 45.67

de 58.77

b 44.10

c


c 37.28

b 58.66

cd 44.42

abc 48.28

def 65.62

bc 49.32

c 61.73

ab


bc 32.50

bc 63.75

bcd 39.41

cd 54.63

bcd 55.33

cd 56.68

b 44.37

c

9 Floramite 2.5 g/l 87.12a 77.74

b 27.77

c 65.67

b 36.06

d 60.78

b 41.82

e 58.86

b 41.58

c


a 107.67

a 101.68

a 106.00

a

CD at 5% NS 7.91 3.54 6.09 3.85 6.25 6.12 5.03 6.74

CV (%) 6.10 5.06 5.39 5.18 6.59 6.28 5.05 6.18


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fenazaquin 10 EC Propargite 57 EC Monocrotophos 36

SL

Dicofol 18.5 EC Oxydemeton

methyl 25 EC

Phosolone 35 EC Wettable sulphur

80 WP

Triazophos 40 EC Floramite Untreated control


Treatments

Fig. 5. Efficacy of acaricides and insecticides against eggs of mite A. guerrenonis under field conditions

Me

an

eg

g p

op

ula

tio

n

Fig. 5. Efficacy of acaricides and insecticides against eggs of mite A. guerrenonis under field conditions

population to maximum extent (51.01%) and was on par with monocrotophos (47.78%), dicofol (44.47%), wettable sulphur (44.42%) and proparagite be floramite with least reduction (36.06%).

At 21 DAS, fenazaquin maintained its superiority by restricting the egg load to a minimum of 38.96 mites and was on par with monocrotophos (43.22). The next best treatments were dicofol (46.49), wettable sulphur (48.28), propargite (51.78) and oxydemeton methyl (51.88) which were on par with each other. Once again floramite was inefficient by recording maximum egg population (60.78) and was on par with triazophos (54.63) and phosolone (55.29).

Maximum reduction of egg population was observed in fenazaquin (76.07) which was significantly superior and on par with monocrotophos (68.73) and dicofol (66.15). Least effective treatment was floramite (41.82).

At 28 DAS, the trend of superiority continued with fenazaquin with lowest egg population (44.20) and was on par with monocrotophos (47.69), dicofol (48.69) and wettable sulphur (49.32). Remaining treatments were on par except for UTC (106.00).

In per cent reduction, fenazaquin was significantly superior in reducing maximum egg population (69.58%) and was found on par with monocrotophos (64.70%), dicofol (62.34%), wettable sulfur (61.73%) and proparagite (58.16%). Floramite was significantly inferior with least reduction of eggs (41.58%) and was on par with triazophos (44.37%), phasolone (44.10)% and oxydemeton methyl (51.39%).

4.2.2 Effect of chemicals on nut damage

The data presented in Table 12 depicted that, as the age of the nuts increased, damage increased. Among the treatments tested, minimum nut damage was recorded in monocrotophos (24.80). Fenazaquin and dicofol were proved as next best treatments in recording 30.97 and 31.07 per cent damaged nuts, respectively, whereas cent per cent damaged nuts were observed in case of untreated palms.

More number of healthy nuts was noticed in dicofol sprayed palms (68.00). The next best treatments were monocrotophos (48.00) and fenazaquin (43.0) while in untreated control recorded maximum number of infested nuts. The palms sprayed with monocrotophos sprayed palms recorded least number of damaged nuts (25.00) and was on par with fenazaquin (22.00) and dicofol (28.00). Dicofol recorded more number of total nuts of 96 nuts per 4 bunches and floramite recorded more number of damaged nuts (61.00).

4.2.3 Effect of chemicals on damage grading

The data on damage grading of nuts presented in Table 13 revealed that nuts of 5th

bunch in different treatments did not differ significantly except untreated control. As the age of nuts increased the per cent damage was also more. An average damage grading was lowest in monocrotophos treatment (1.23) which was on par with fenazaquin (1.35) and dicofol (1.52). The next best treatments were found to be wettable sulfur (1.60) and propargite (1.82). The untreated palms recorded maximum damage grading (3.22).

4.3 BIOEFFICACY OF BOTANICALS AGAINST ACTIVE STAGES OF MITE, A. guerreronis

Eleven botanicals were screened for the management of active stages of perianth mite A. guerreronis in coconut and the data is presented in Tables 14-16 (Fig. 6).


The data presented in Table 14 indicated that, a day before imposition of treatments all the treatments were on par with each other. At seven days after I spray, NSKE was significantly superior (62.03 mites per 28.28 mm² area). It was found on par with dicofol (60.80), neemazal (68.19), neem oil (65.45) and garlic + neem oil (65.51). Least effective botanical was biocare (83.11) by recording maximum number of mites.

Table 12. Bio-efficacy of acaricides and insecticides on nut damage due to A. guerreronis

Percentage of damaged nuts in Number of nuts/4 bunches/palm Sl. No.

Treatments Dosage

Bunch 5 Bunch 6 Bunch 7 Bunch 8 Average Healthy Damaged Total nuts

1 Fenazaquin 10 EC 2 ml/l 21.30f 25.53

f 31.10

f 45.93

d 30.97

f 43.00

c 22.00

e 65.00

2 Propargite 57 EC 2 ml/l 31.57d 38.97

e 61.13

de 46.33

d 44.50

d 35.00

ef 41.00

c 76.00

3 Monocrotophos 36 SL 4 ml/l 14.02g 18.51

g 29.02

f 37.66

f 24.80

g 48.00

b 25.00

e 73.00

4 Dicofol 18.5 EC 4 ml/l 24.92ef 28.38

f 32.13

f 38.83

ef 31.07

f 68.00

a 28.00

de 96.00

5 Oxydemeton methyl 25 EC 4 ml/l 31.68d 43.58

d 65.63

d 41.33

def 45.56

d 31.00

fg 45.00

bc 76.00

6 Phosolone 35 EC 2 ml/l 42.83c 61.02

b 71.92

c 69.16

c 61.23

c 27.00

g 51.00

b 78.00

7 Wettable sulphur 80 WP 5 g/l 28.54de

34.62e 56.49

e 28.30

g 36.99

e 42.00

cd 34.00

d 76.00

8 Triazophos 40 EC 4 ml/l 33.82d 49.34

c 66.34

d 44.16

de 48.42

d 38.00

de 45.00

bc 83.00

9 Floramite 2.5 g/l 48.55b 62.10

b 94.33

b 79.66

b 71.16

b 21.00

h 61.00

a 82.00


a 100.00

a 100.00

a 100.00

a 0.00

j 42.00

c 42.00

CV (%) 8.49 5.65 5.32 5.81 6.32 7.13 9.02

CD at 5% 5.47 4.47 5.55 5.29 5.20 4.29 6.10

In a column means followed by same alphabet donot differ significantly by DMRT (P=0.05)

Table 13. Bio-efficacy of insecticides on the damage grading of nuts due to A. guerreronis

Percentage of damaged nuts in Sl. No.

Treatments Dosage

Bunch 5 Bunch 6 Bunch 7 Bunch 8 Average


ab 1.40

a 1.47

a 1.35

a


c 2.32

b 1.73

ab 1.82

b


a 1.38

a 1.22

a 1.52

a

4 Dicofol 18.5 EC 4 ml/l 1.22a 1.26

ab 1.42

a 2.18

b 1.23

ab

5 Oxydemeton methyl 25 EC 4 ml/l 1.39a 1.86

c 2.48

b 1.83

b 1.89

bc


c 2.82

bc 2.18

b 2.11

c


b 2.16

b 1.36

a 1.60

b


c 2.84

c 2.84

c 2.28

c

9 Floramite 2.5 g/l 1.98b 2.62

d 2.88

c 2.99

c 2.61

c

10 Untreated control - 3.24c 2.98

d 3.12

c 3.56

d 3.22

d

CV (%) 14.68 9.28 8.62 14.70 10.82

CD at 5% 0.40 0.32 0.36 0.53 0.36


Table 14. Efficacy of botanicals against active stages of mite, A. guerreronis during I spray


1 DBS 7 DAS 14 DAS 21 DAS 28 DAS Sl. No.

Treatments Dosage No. of adults

No. of adults

% reduction over UTC

No. of adults


No. of adults


No. of adults


1 Turmeric 2.0% 88.49a 74.49

cde 17.48

de 58.00

d 39.63

d 49.70

e 44.49

d 47.22

e 47.19

c

2 NSKE 5.0% 89.56a 62.03

g 31.27

a 52.03

e 45.96

bc 30.44

g 65.98

b 28.32

g 68.35

a

3 KKG-56 2.0% 87.58a 75.39

cde 16.47

e 65.87

c 31.46

e 60.57

cd 32.22

ef 58.15

cd 34.98

de

4 KNG-47 2.0% 86.35a 76.72

bcd 15.01

e 68.24

c 29.00

e 62.62

c 29.90

f 60.01

bc 32.89

e

5 KKS-56 2.0% 84.59a 72.24

cdef 19.96

cde 64.92

c 32.53

e 59.62

c 33.28

ef 55.86

cd 37.54

de

6 KNS-47 2.0% 87.29a 69.58

def 22.88

bcd 63.36

c 34.13

e 56.67

d 36.51

e 53.81

d 39.83

d

7 Neemazal 5% 5 ml/l 89.92a 68.19

efg 24.49

bc 55.25

de 42.58

bcd 40.17

f 55.03

c 37.22

f 58.38

b

8 Neem oil 3.0% 90.38a 65.45

fg 27.49

ab 51.17

e 46.84

b 38.19

f 57.28

c 35.83

f 59.94

b

9 Sweet flag 2.0% 89.23a 77.28

bc 14.38

e 64.55

c 32.89

e 62.29

c 30.29

ef 60.63

bc 32.20

e

10 Garlic + neemoil 2.0% + 2.0% 91.36a 65.51

fg 27.41

ab 56.44

de 41.32

cd 48.27

e 46.02

d 46.92

e 47.55

c

11 Biocare 4 ml/l 90.48a 83.11

b 7.96

f 75.26

b 21.69

f 69.79

b 21.93

g 65.87

b 26.34

f

12 Dicofol 4 ml/l 89.45a 60.80

g 32.70

a 43.20

f 55.06

a 24.69

h 72.42

a 28.62

g 67.99

a

13 Untreated - 91.48a 90.32

a 96.12

a 89.39

a 89.39

a

CV (%) 5.58 14.98 5.83 8.12 5.65 8.17 6.50 7.42

CD at 5% 6.81 5.16 6.15 4.92 5.07 5.74 5.62 5.49

DBS = Days before spraying; DAS=Days after spraying; In a column means followed by same alphabet donot differ significantly by DMRT (P=0.05)

Maximum per cent reduction was seen with NSKE (31.27%) which was significantly superior and found on par with dicofol (32.70%), neem oil (27.49%) and garlic + neem oil (27.41). Least per cent reduction was seen in biocare (11.61%).

At 14 DAS, among botanicals NSKE (52.03) was significantly superior over all treatments and was on par with neem oil (51.17), neemazal (55.25) and garlic + neem oil (56.44) whereas the standard check dicofol (43.20) was significantly superior over all treatments. Least effective botanical was found to be biocare (75.26).

In per cent reduction, NSKE was very effective in reducing maximum number of mites (45.96%) and was on par with neem oil and neemazal with per cent reduction of 46.84 and 42.58, respectively. Least reduction was recorded in case of biocare (21.69%).

At 21 DAS, NSKE was more effective with minimum number of mites i.e. 30.44 and was significantly superior among botanicals, which was then followed by neem oil (38.19) and neemazal (40.17) which are on par with each other. Maximum number of mites was recorded in biocare treated palms (69.79) which was proved to be least effective. As usual the standard check dicofol (24.64) was significantly superior over all treatments.

Regarding per cent reduction, NSKE was very effective in giving maximum reduction (73.71%) among the botanicals. The next best treatments were found to be neem oil and neemazal with per cent reduction of 57.28 and 55.03 respectively. Least per cent reduction was recorded in biocare (21.93%). At 28 DAS, the best treatment was found to be NSKE (28.32) which was significantly superior over all other treatments and was found on par with dicofol (28.62). Next best treatments were found to be neem oil (35.83) and neemazal (37.22) which were on par with each other. Least effective botanical was found to be biocare (65.87).

In per cent reduction, NSKE was found superior in reducing mites (68.35%) which were on par with dicofol (67.99%). Next proven best treatments were neem oil (59.94%) and neemazal (58.38%). Least effective botanical in reducing number of mites was biocare (26.34%).


The data presented in Table 15 revealed that there was no significant difference in recording mite population among the treatments a day before spray. However, at seven days after spraying (DAS) all the botanicals tested were found to be significantly superior over untreated control. Among the botanicals, NSKE recorded significantly lowest (64.07 mites/28.28 mm² area) mite population and was on par, neem oil (66.24), neemazal (68.63), KNS-47 (70.65) and garlic + neem oil (67.12) whereas biocare recorded highest mite population (79.53) and was proved least effective. The standard check dicofol (58.16) significantly superior over all the treatments and was on par with NSKE.

Data regarding per cent reduction of mites over control indicated the superiority of NSKE (28.64%) which was on par with neem oil (26.22%), neemazal (23.56%) and garlic + neem oil (25.24%).

At 14th DAS, the mite population density in different treatments ranged from 42.34 to

89.24 and among different treatments dicofol was found effective and recorded significantly lowest mite population (42.34). Among botanicals the best treatment was found to be NSKE 5 per cent (55.34) which was on par with neem oil (55.32), neemazal 5 per cent (58.34), garlic + neem oil (60.31) and Turmeric (60.34).

With respect to reduction of mite population over untreated control, NSKE recorded highest per cent reduction of mites (37.99%) among botanicals and was on par with neem oil (38.01%) and neemazal (34.63%). Significantly maximum reduction of mites was seen in the standard check dicofol (52.55%).

Similar trend was noticed at 21 DAS in recording mite population as that of previous observation. Among different botanicals, NSKE was significantly superior by recording (32.16) mites which was on par with neem oil (35.15). Biocare was found to be leas effective treatment which recorded 68.39 mites.

The per cent reduction of mites showed that NSKE was significantly superior among botanicals in reducing the mite population (64.40%). biocare proved to be the least effective

Table 15. Efficacy of botanicals against active stages of mite, A. guerreronis during II spray



Treatments Dosage

No. of adults

No. of adults


No. of adults


No. of adults


No. of adults


1 Turmeric 2.0% 91.69a 76.49

bc 14.80

e 60.34

def 32.38

cd 51.24

d 43.27

d 48.26

e 47.74

d

2 NSKE 5.0% 88.38a 64.07

ef 28.64

b 55.34

f 37.99

b 32.16

f 64.40

b 26.35

h 71.46

a

3 KKG-56 2.0% 86.29a 76.58

bc 14.70

e 65.08

bcd 27.07

de 61.25

c 32.19

e 54.28

cd 41.22

ef

4 KNG-47 2.0% 89.59a 77.49

bc 13.69

e 66.82

bc 25.12

ef 63.14

c 30.10

ef 58.20

c 36.97

fg

5 KKS-56 2.0% 85.34a 74.62

bcd 16.89

de 64.28

cd 27.97

de 59.24

c 34.42

e 55.06

cd 40.37

efg

6 KNS-47 2.0% 86.18a 70.65

cde 21.31

cd 62.18

cde 30.32

cde 59.38

c 34.26

e 50.38

de 45.44

de

7 Neemazal 5% 5 ml/l 88.28a 68.63

de 23.56

bc 58.34

ef 34.63

bc 42.16

e 53.33

c 32.45g 64.86

b

8 Neem oil 3.0% 85.29a 66.24

e 26.22

bc 55.32

f 38.01

b 35.15

f 61.09

b 30.42g

h 67.06

ab

9 Sweet flag 2.0% 89.35a 79.36

b 11.42

e 63.16

cde 29.22

cde 63.05

c 30.20

ef 60.34

c 34.65g

10 Garlic + neemoil 2.0% + 2.0% 86.24a 67.12

e 25.24

bc 60.31

def 32.42

cd 46.08

e 48.99

bc 42.38

f 54.10

c

11 Biocare 4 ml/l 90.48a 79.53

b 11.61

e 70.31

b 21.21

f 68.39

b 24.29

f 68.49

b 25.83

h

12 Dicofol 4 ml/l 92.58a 58.16

f 35.22

a 42.34g 52.55

a 23.75

g 73.71

a 25.38

h 72.51

a

13 Untreated - 91.68a 89.78

a 89.24

a 90.33

a 92.34

a

CV (%) 5.68 10.58 4.83 8.68 5.95 9.05 6.82 7.42

CD at 5% 6.86 5.18 6.85 6.92 6.07 4.04 6.62 4.52


treatment and recorded 24.29 per cent reduction but found on par with KNG-47 (30.10%) and sweetflag (30.20%).

NSKE retained its superiority even at 28th day after spraying by recording least

number of mites (26.35) among botanicals which was on par with neem oil (30.42). Whereas biocare (68.49) was found to be least effective treatment compared to other botanicals. Mite population was reduced to the tune of 71.46 per cent over untreated control in case of NSKE and stood out as significantly superior over rest of botanicals and was on par with neem oil (67.06%). The standard check dicofol (72.51%) was significantly superior in reducing mites over all treatments and was on par with NSKE.


The data presented in Table 16 indicated that the number of mites on nuts a day before imposition was statistically non-significant. The population ranged between 83.09 to 89.19 mites per 28.28 mm² area. At 7

th DAS, dicofol (54.57), NSKE 5 per cent (55.25), neem

oil (58.51), neemazal (55.28), garlic + neem oil (60.42) and KKS-56 (57.88) and KNS-47 (56.35) were best treatments and on par with each other. Turmeric (63.73) was found to be next best treatment.

Per cent reduction of mites over untreated control also showed similar trend of results where in NSKE (45.23) was significantly superior among botanicals and was on par with dicofol (48.32), neem oil (48.96), neemazal (48.27), KNS-47 (97.17) and KKS-56 (45.81).

At 14 DAS, all the treatments differed significantly for their effectiveness. Among botanicals, the treatment NSKE proved superior treatment and recorded 42.28 mites which were on par with dicofol (40.68), neem oil (45.23), neemazal (45.58) and KNS-47 (46.32). Next best treatments were found to be KKS-56 (48.67) and garlic + neem oil (54.67). The least effective treatment was found o be KNG-47 (67.97) and biocare (64.63) which were significantly inferior.

With respect to per cent reduction of mites over untreated control the data revealed that dicofol was the best treatment which recorded highest per cent reduction of mites (60.52%) compared to all other treatments. Among botanicals, NSKE 5 per cent (58.92%) was significantly superior treatment and was on par with neem oil (56.09%), neemazal (55.76%) and KNS-47 (55.05%).

Similar trend of results was observed at 21 DAS as in 14 DAS. Among all treatments, the standard check dicofol maintained its superiority by recording significantly least number of mites (26.33), but among botanicals, NSKE 5 per cent (37.28) was best treatment and was on par with neem oil (40.33), neemazal (41.26), KNS-47 (41.31) and KKS-56 (43.87).

The per cent reduction of mites over untreated control indicated that dicofol was significantly superior treatment by recording 74.40 per cent overall treatments but among botanicals, NSKE 5 per cent (64.17%) was significantly superior and was on par with neem oil (61.22%), neemazal (60.31%) and KNS-47 (60.25%). Treatments like biocare, KNG-47 and KKG-56 were significantly inferior with 36.16 per cent, 38.21 per cent and 42.38 per cent reduction, respectively.

Even at 28 DAS, among all treatments, the standard check dicofol maintained its superiority by recording significantly lowest mite population (28.84) but among botanicals NSKE 5 per cent (40.26) was significantly superior and was on par with neem oil (41.48), neemazal (43.38), KNS-47 (45.53) and KKS-56 (45.59).

With respect to per cent reduction of mites over control, dicofol was significantly superior compared to all other treatments (72.74%). The next best treatments among botanicals were found to be NSKE 5 per cent (61.95%), neem oil (60.80%) and neemazal (59.95%) which were on par with each other. Significantly least per cent reduction of mites over control was noticed in biocare (37.91%) which was found on par with KNG-47 (39.80%) and KKG-56 (41.45%).

Table 16. Efficacy of botanicals against active stages of mite, A. guerreronis during III spray



Treatments Dosage

No. of adults

No. of adults


No. of adults


No. of adults


No. of adults


1 Turmeric 2.0% 86.70a 63.73

bcde 40.34

cd 58.72

de 43.01

e 54.28

de 47.85

de 55.31

d 47.73

d

2 NSKE 5.0% 86.03a 55.25

ef 45.23

ab 42.28

g 58.92

b 37.28

f 64.17

b 40.26

e 61.45

b

3 KKG-56 2.0% 87.15a 65.98

bcd 38.24

de 62.61

bcd 39.24

ef 59.93

bcd 42.38

fg 61.42

bc 41.95

de

4 KNG-47 2.0% 87.14a 68.23

bc 36.12

de 67.97

b 34.03

g 64.26

b 38.21

g 63.70

b 39.80

e

5 KKS-56 2.0% 87.11a 57.88

def 45.81

ab 48.67

f 52.77

c 43.87

f 57.82

c 45.59

e 56.92

c

6 KNS-47 2.0% 85.03a 56.35

ef 47.27

ab 46.32

fg 55.05

bc 41.31

f 60.28

bc 45.53

e 56.97

c

7 Neemazal 5% 5 ml/l 83.69a 55.28

ef 48.27

a 45.58

fg 55.76

bc 41.26

f 60.31

bc 42.38

e 59.95

b

8 Neem oil 3.0% 84.14a 58.51

def 48.96

a 45.23

fg 56.09

bc 40.33

f 61.22

bc 41.48

e 60.80

b

9 Sweet flag 2.0% 84.46a 65.71

bcd 38.49

de 60.95

cd 40.85

ef 57.47

cde 44.76

ef 56.74

cd 46.38

d

10 Garlic + neemoil 2.0% + 2.0% 84.67a 60.42

cdef 43.45

bc 54.67

e 46.93

d 51.31

e 50.67

d 52.48

d 50.41

d

11 Biocare 4 ml/l 83.09a 61.78

b 34.68

c 64.63

bc 37.27

fg 63.27

bc 39.16

g 65.70

b 37.91

e

12 Dicofol 4 ml/l 84.04a 54.57

f 48.32

a 40.68

g 60.52

a 26.33

g 74.40

a 28.84

f 72.74

a

13 Untreated - 89.19a 106.85

a - 103.05

a - 104.00

a - 105.83

a -

CV (%) 5.30 5.03 7.44 6.34

CD at 5% 7.82 3.95 5.23 4.00 6.10 5.87 5.34 4.39


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Turmeric NSKE KKG-56 KNG-47 KKS-56 KNS-47 Neemazal 5% Neem oil Sweet flag Garlic +

neemoil

Biocare Dicofol Untreated


Treatments

Fig. 6. Efficacy of botanicals against active stages of mite, A. guerreronis under field conditions

Me

an

active

mite

po

pu

latio

n

Fig. 6. Efficacy of botanicals against active stages of mite, A. guerreronis under field conditions

4.3.1 Efficacy of botanicals against eggs of A. guerreronis

Botanicals were evaluated for their efficacy against egg stages of A. guerreronis and the data is presented in Tables 17 to 19 (Fig. 7).


The data presented in Table 17 indicated no significant difference among different treatments a day before spray. However, noticeable results were seen during 7 DAS. Among the botanicals NSKE (61.11), was significantly superior and was on par with dicofol (60.83), neem oil (62.55), neemazal (63.11), KNS-47 (63.17) and KKS-56 (66.44) whereas the standard check dicofol (60.83) was significantly superior over all treatments.

Data in per cent reduction revealed that NSKE 5 per cent was significantly superior in reducing egg population to the tune of about 34.02 per cent and was found on par with dicofol (34.28%), neem oil (32.55%), neemazal (31.77%), KNS-47 (31.78%) and KKS-56 (28.42%).

At 14 DAS, once again standard check dicofol (34.20) was significantly superior among all treatments but among botanicals NSKE (40.25) was significantly superior and was on par with neem oil (45.48). Least effective botanical was found to be biocare (73.85) which was significantly inferior and was found on par with KNG-47 (72.31).

Whereas in per cent reduction, dicofol was significantly superior with maximum reduction of eggs (67.83%) compared to all other treatments. Among botanicals, NSKE 5 per cent was found to be the best treatment (62.19%) followed by neem oil (57.25%), neemazal (54.60%), KNS-487 (53.52%) and KKS-56 (52.75%).

At 21 DAS, among all treatments significantly least population of eggs was seen in dicofol (31.67) and was significantly superior over all other treatments but among botanicals, NSKE 5 per cent (36.67) was significantly superior and was on par with neem oil (43.83), neemazal (45.00), KNS-47 (46.17) and KKS-56 (48.21). Once again least effective botanical was found to be biocare (70.25).

Similarly in per cent reduction, dicofol was significantly superior over all treatments (71.16%). Then followed by NSKE 5 per cent (66.64%) among botanicals which was next best treatment. Least effective botanical in per cent reduction was found to be biocare (36.07%) which was on par with KNG-47 (37.05%) and KKG-56 (39.70%).

At 28 DAS, slight increase in egg population was seen, but still neem oil (56.13) was significantly superior among all botanicals and was on par with all other treatments except for KKG-56 (66.57), KNG-47 (67.53) and biocare (72.90).

Regarding per cent reduction, neem oil maintained its superiority (32.17%) among botanicals and was on par with NSKE 5 per cent (28.63), neemazal (28.05 and KNS-47 (28.23). biocare was inferior with lowest per cent reduction of 11.96 per cent. The standard check dicofol (37.81%) was significantly superior over all treatments and was on par with Neem oil.


The data presented in Table 18 revealed that there was no significant difference in recording mite population among the treatments a day before spray. Observable differences in the results were seen during 7 DAS. The best among botanicals were NSKE 5 per cent (60.52) and neem oil (60.80) which were on par with each other. The next best treatments were neemazal (65.47), KNS-47 (66.57) and KKS-56 (66.89) which were equal in effectiveness. Among all treatments, the standard check dicofol (56.44) was significantly superior over all treatments.

Data recorded in per cent reduction revealed that among botanicals, maximum per cent reduction was seen in NSKE 5 per cent (37.75%) which was significantly superior and on par with neem oil (37.40%). Minimum per cent reduction was recorded in biocare (16.79%) which is significantly inferior. The standard check dicofol (41.51%) was significantly superior over all treatments in reducing mites and was on par with NSKE 5 per cent.

At 14 DAS, most effective treatment was found to be dicofol (43.92) which was significantly superior over all other treatments and among botanicals, NSKE 5 per cent

Table 17. Efficacy of botanicals against egg stages of A. guerreronis during I spray



Treatments Dosage No. of eggs

No. of eggs


No. of eggs


No. of eggs


No. of eggs


1 Turmeric 2.0% 89.68a 73.06

b 21.31

b 59.65

f 43.91

d 59.40

de 46.08

de 64.80

bcd 21.69

d

2 NSKE 5.0% 88.36a 61.11

d 34.02

a 40.25

h 62.19

b 36.67

f 66.64

b 59.30

cd 28.63

bc

3 KKG-56 2.0% 87.69a 74.21

b 19.83

b 67.50

cd 36.57

e 66.33

bcd 39.70

fg 66.57

bc 19.65

d

4 KNG-47 2.0% 87.68a 75.10

b 18.98

b 72.31

bc 32.05

f 69.37

bc 37.05

g 67.53

bc 18.23

d

5 KKS-56 2.0% 88.29a 66.44

cd 28.42

a 50.25

g 52.75

c 48.21

f 56.18

c 62.97

bcd 23.98

cd

6 KNS-47 2.0% 88.35a 63.17

d 31.78

a 49.44

g 53.52

c 46.17

f 57.93

c 60.03

cd 28.23

bc

7 Neemazal 5% 5 ml/l 89.56a 63.11

d 31.77

a 48.32

g 54.60

c 45.00

f 58.96

c 59.70

cd 28.05

bc

8 Neem oil 3.0% 89.29a 62.55

d 32.55

a 45.48

h 57.25

c 43.83

f 60.04

c 56.13

cd 32.17

ab

9 Sweet flag 2.0% 91.36a 73.44

b 20.71

b 65.50

de 38.42

e 62.50

cde 43.18

ef 65.47

bcd 20.84

d

10 Garlic + neemoil 2.0% + 2.0% 90.59a 72.33

bc 21.96

b 60.42

ef 43.22

d 56.50

e 48.64

d 63.60

bcd 22.77

cd

11 Biocare 4 ml/l 87.39a 77.44

b 16.43

b 73.85

b 30.57

f 70.25

b 36.07

g 72.90

b 11.96

e

12 Dicofol 4 ml/l 91.68a 60.83

d 34.28

a 34.20

i 67.83

a 31.67

g 71.16

a 54.07

d 37.81

a

13 Untreated - 90.68a 92.77

a - 106.40

a - 110.09

a - 83.20

a -

CV (%) 5.09 12.13 5.27 6.29 7.16 6.69 9.02 11.69

CD at 5% 6.04 5.34 5.29 5.08 6.93 5.87 9.78 4.85


Table 18. Efficacy of botanicals against egg stages of A. guerreronis during II spray


1 DBS 7 DAS 14 DAS 21 DAS 28 DAS Sl. No. Treatments Dosage

No. of eggs No. of eggs


No. of eggs


No. of eggs


No. of eggs


1 Turmeric 2.0% 89.65a 70.20

cd 27.85

cde 66.75

cde 26.07

ef 58.42

de 35.09

g 62.50

d 39.89

f

2 NSKE 5.0% 88.56a 60.52

ef 37.75

ab 45.30

g 50.05

a 31.25

i 65.28

b 39.60

g 61.94

b

3 KKG-56 2.0% 86.26a 73.43

bcd 24.47

e 71.25

bcd 21.33

fg 62.48

cd 30.58

g 69.57

c 33.15

g

4 KNG-47 2.0% 86.18a 74.10

bc 24.71

de 72.40

bc 20.03

gh 66.79

bc 25.79

h 71.70

bc 31.08

gh

5 KKS-56 2.0% 85.39a 66.89

cde 31.23

bcde 62.70

e 30.71

cde 49.50

f 45.00

e 52.47

e 49.56

e

6 KNS-47 2.0% 88.65a 66.57

cde 31.48

bcd 61.48

e 32.09

cd 47.45

f 47.28

e 48.37

ef 53.50

de

7 Neemazal 5% 5 ml/l 89.54a 65.47

de 32.64

bc 60.25

ef 33.58

c 42.32

g 52.98

d 44.90

fg 56.84

cd

8 Neem oil 3.0% 87.69a 60.80

ef 37.40

ab 52.34

fg 42.17

b 37.50

h 58.33

e 41.70

g 59.92

bc

9 Sweet flag 2.0% 87.25a 70.83

cd 27.21

cde 70.30

bcd 22.42

fg 60.74

d 32.51

g 63.17

d 39.28

f

10 Garlic + neemoil 2.0% + 2.0% 88.16a 69.70

cd 28.28

cde 65.42

de 27.75

de 54.20

e 39.78

f 59.70

d 42.62

f

11 Biocare 4 ml/l 84.36a 80.90

b 16.79

f 76.09

b 16.04

g 70.36

b 21.82

h 75.93

b 27.02

h

12 Dicofol 4 ml/l 86.37a 56.94

f 41.51

a 43.92

h 51.44

a 24.76

j 72.49

a 32.47

h 68.79

a

13 Untreated - 90.35a 97.30

a - 90.70

a - 90.00

a - 104.08

a -

CV (%) 6.30 12.87 5.52 7.97 5.08 7.13 5.13 6.27

CD at 5% 7.46 6.56 6.00 4.20 4.58 5.31 5.09 4.99


(45.30) was significantly superior and was on par with neem oil (52.34). Significantly least effective treatment was once again biocare (76.09).

NSKE 5 per cent maintained its superiority by recording maximum per cent reduction (50.05%) and was on par with dicofol (51.44%). The next best treatment was found to be neem oil with 42.17 per cent.

At 21 DAS, dicofol (24.76) was the best treatment and significantly superior over all other treatments. Among botanicals, best treatment was NSKE (31.25), followed by neem oil (37.50). Once again the significantly least effective treatment was found to be biocare (70.36).

dicofol recorded significantly highest per cent reduction of eggs over control (72.49%), but among botanicals, NSKE 5 per cent (65.28%) and neem oil (58.33%) were found to be next best treatments. Least effective botanicals were biocare and KNG-47 with 21.82 and 25.79 per cent reduction, respectively.

At 28 DAS, dicofol maintained its superiority by recording significantly lowest egg population (32.47). The next best treatments among botanicals were found to be NSKE (39.60), neem oil (41.70) and neemazal (44.90) which were on par with each other.

Dicofol maintained its superiority by recording maximum per cent reduction of eggs (68.79%) which was followed by NSKE 5 per cent and neem oil with 61.94 and 59.92 per cent, respectively.


The data in Table 19 depicted that there was no significant difference among the treatments a day before spray.

At 7 DAS, all the treatments were superior over UTC. Among them dicofol proved its superiority by recording least number of eggs (55.05) and was on par with NSKE 5 per cent (60.83) and neem oil (60.43). Least effective treatment was proved to be biocare (77.44).

Data presented with respect to per cent reduction of eggs over control showed that Dicofol, NSKE 5 per cent and neem oil were the best treatments in recording highest per cent reduction of eggs of 40.69, 34.38 and 34.79, respectively. The next best treatments were found to be neemazal (32.69%), KKS-56 (28.42%) and garlic + neem oil (31.77%) which were comparable in their effectiveness.

At 14 DAS, dicofol maintained its superiority by recording least mite population (49.29 which was on par with NSKE 5 per cent (50.37), neem oil (51.50) and neemazal (52.16). Garlic + neem oil (55.83) was found to be the next best treatment.

With regard to per cent reduction, dicofol was superior in significant reduction of eggs (40.88) and was on par with NSKE 5 per cent (39.59), neem oil (38.22) and neemazal (37.38). Least effective botanicals were Biocare, KKG-56s and KNG-47 with 15.26 per cent, 21.00 per cent and 19.26 per cent, respectively.

At 21 DAS, once again dicofol maintained its superiority by reducing egg population to 21.40 which was on par with NSKE 5 per cent (26.67), neem oil (28.74), neemazal (29.80) and garlic + neem oil (31.58). Least effective botanical was proved to be biocare (66.55).

Maximum percentage of reduction of eggs was recorded in dicofol (74.14%) which was significantly superior over all treatments. NSKE 5 per cent (67.85%), neem oil (65.20%) and neemazal (63.94%) were next best treatments and on par with each other.

Similar trend in recording egg population was noticed at 28 DAS. Once again dicofol was significantly superior overall other treatments (29.80), NSKE 5 per cent (39.27), neem oil (39.93), neemazal (40.07), garlic + neem oil (45.03) and KNS-477 (45.03) and KKS-56 (42.13) were found to be next best treatments which were on par with to each other.

Data in per cent reduction shows that dicofol was superior in reduction of eggs (62.99%), followed by NSKE 5 per cent (51.39%), neem oil (50.38%), neemazal (50.13%) and KKS-56 (47.50%). Least per cent reduction was noticed in case of biocare (11.46%) which was on par with KNG-47 (15.00%).

Table 19. Efficacy of botanicals against egg stages of A. guerreronis during III spray



Treatments Dosage

No. of eggs

No. of eggs


No. of eggs


No. of eggs


No. of eggs


1 Turmeric 2.0% 89.26a 73.06

b 21.31

d 63.59

cd 23.60

de 39.67

ef 51.92

f 48.37

e 39.89

d

2 NSKE 5.0% 90.26a 60.83

ef 34.28

ab 50.37

fg 39.59

a 26.67

ij 67.85

b 39.27

f 51.39

b

3 KKG-56 2.0% 92.35a 74.21

b 19.83

d 65.83

bc 21.00

ef 49.56

d 39.79

h 65.04

c 19.17

f

4 KNG-47 2.0% 90.38a 75.10

b 18.98

d 67.25

bc 19.26

ef 58.78

c 30.92

I 68.60

bc 15.00

fg

5 KKS-56 2.0% 88.69a 66.44

cd 28.42

bc 59.16

de 29.04

cd 34.57

fgh 58.10

de 42.13

f 47.50

bc

6 KNS-47 2.0% 89.56a 71.46

bc 22.91

cd 62.33

cd 25.13

de 36.70

fg 55.57

ef 45.03

ef 44.16

cd

7 Neemazal 5% 5 ml/l 89.26a 62.29

de 32.69

b 52.16

fg 37.38

ab 29.80

hi 63.94

bc 40.07

f 50.13

b

8 Neem oil 3.0% 88.39a 60.43

def 34.79

ab 51.50

fg 38.22

ab 28.74

hi 65.20

bc 39.93

f 50.38

b

9 Sweet flag 2.0% 88.69a 73.44

b 20.71

d 65.00

bcd 22.00

e 44.00

de 46.73

g 57.47

d 28.79

e

10 Garlic + neemoil 2.0% + 2.0% 89.23a 63.11

de 31.77

b 55.83

ef 33.08

bc 31.58

ghi 61.68

cd 45.03

ef 44.16

cd

11 Biocare 4 ml/l 90.36a 77.44

b 16.43

d 70.61

b 15.26

f 66.55

b 19.46

j 71.37

b 11.46

g

12 Dicofol 4 ml/l 91.69a 55.05

f 40.64

a 49.29

g 40.88

a 21.40

i 74.14

a 29.80

g 62.99

a

13 Untreated - 92.68a 92.77

a - 83.38

a - 82.67

a - 81.03

a -

CV (%) 4.99 13.69 5.40 12.11 8.88 8.55 6.22 8.38

CD at 5% 5.86 6.23 5.57 5.89 6.31 7.67 5.43 5.50


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Turmeric NSKE KKG-56 KNG-47 KKS-56 KNS-47 Neemazal 5% Neem oil Sweet flag Garlic +

neemoil

Biocare Dicofol Untreated


Treatments

Fig. 7. Efficacy of botanicals against egg stages of A. guerreronis under field conditions

Me

an

eg

g p

op

ula

tio

n

Fig. 7. Efficany of botanicals against egg stages of A. guerreronis under field conditions

4.3.2 Effect of botanicals and biorationals on nut damage

The data presented in Table 20 indicated that percentage of damaged nuts in 5th

and 6

th bunch was less compared to 7

th and 8

th bunches. Average per cent damaged nuts

indicated that NSKE (57.58) and dicofol (59.32) were most effective treatments bearing least per cent damaged nuts and also on par with each other, whereas untreated palms beared 100 per cent damaged nuts.

Dicofol treated palms recorded more number of healthy nuts (38 per 4 bunches) and maintained superiority among all the treatments and was on par with NSKE 5 per cent (36.00 nuts). Significantly less number of healthy nuts was observed in biocare (5.00) while untreated control did not recorded healthy nuts.

With respect to damaged nuts, dicofol recorded less number of damaged nuts of 22.00. where as NSKE and neem oil recorded 53 and 45 damaged nuts respectively. NSKE treated palms maintained superiority of bearing highest number of total nuts (89 nuts/4 bunches) followed by neem oil (75 nuts/4 bunches).

4.3.3 Efficacy of botanicals on damage grading

The data on the damage grading presented in Table 21 indicated that damage grading was more in old bunches of 7

th and 8

th compared to 5

th and 6

th bunches. Average

grading of nuts clearly indicated that dicofol treated nuts showed least damage category (1.33) and was on par with NSKE (1.60) treated nuts. biocare (3.23) was least effective treatment and found on par with untreated control (3.75).

4.4 EVOLVING AN EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE OF SPRAYING AND ROOT FEEDING AGAINST THE MITE

The data presented in Table 22 and Fig. 8 indicated that there was no significant difference among the treatments a day before application of spray and root feeding.

A month after application of respective spraying and root feeding treatments, significant difference was noticed among the treatments. Lowest mite population was recorded with root feeding six times per year (38.43) which was significantly, superior over all and was on par with spray 6 times per year (42.84), followed by root feeding 2 times per year (72.28), root feeding 4 times per year (73.91), root feeding 3 times per year (75.34), spray 3 times per year (76.94) and spray 4 times per year (79.08) which were on par to each other. Highest mite population was recorded with untreated control (91.96).

Maximum per cent reduction was noticed in root feeding 6 times per year (58.16%) which was on par with spray 6 times per year (53.37%). Remaining treatments were next best treatments and were on par with each other except for spray 2 times per year (9.18) with least per cent reduction over control.

In November, root feeding 2 times per year (38.92) was significantly superior over all other treatments by recording lowest mite population and was on par with root feeding 3 times per year (39.90) and root feeding 4 times per year (42.71). However, untreated control recorded highest mite population (92.18).

Among different treatments in reducing the mite population, spray 2 times per year (57.80) was significantly superior in recording maximum per cent reduction of mites and was found on par with root feeding 3 times per year (56.70) and root feeding 4 times per year (53.65). Significantly least per cent reduction was recorded with spray 2 times per year (15.04).

In December month of schedule consisting of root feeding 6 times per year was found to be significantly superior by recording least mite population (30.26 mites) followed by spray 6 times per year (37.85). The remaining treatments were the next best treatments, which are on par with each other except for spray 2 times per year (79.48) but was superior over untreated control (89.10).

Treatments in per cent reduction also showed similar trend of results. Among all treatments, root feeding 6 times per year was significantly superior with maximum per cent

Table 20. Bio-efficacy of botanicals on nut damage due to A. guerreronis


Treatments Dosage Bunch 5 Bunch 6 Bunch 7 Bunch 8 Average Healthy Damaged Total nuts

1 Turmeric 2.0% 45.68ef 64.17

cd 69.96

cd 77.95

de 64.44

fg 20.00

d 47.00

c 67.00

2 NSKE 5.0% 23.91h 57.91

de 76.00

bc 72.48

e 57.58

g 36.00

a 53.00

ab 89.00

3 KKG-56 2.0% 66.42c 71.43

b 76.84

bc 85.49

bcd 75.05

cd 9.00

fg 55.00

a 64.00

4 KNG-47 2.0% 62.63c 72.98

b 75.18

cd 84.25

bcd 73.76

cde 10.00

efg 53.00

ab 63.00

5 KKS-56 2.0% 62.73c 71.95

b 73.49

cd 82.07

bcd 72.56

cde 11.00

ef 49.00

bc 60.00

6 KNS-47 2.0% 51.69d 68.77

bc 70.27

cd 78.68

de 67.35

ef 12.00

ef 56.00

a 68.00

7 Neemazal 5% 5 ml/l 40.80fg 73.61

b 72.52

cd 87.66

bc 68.65

def 27.00

bc 40.00

d 67.00

8 Neem oil 3.0% 38.52g 69.34

bc 67.79

d 79.07

e 63.68

fg 30.00

b 45.00

c 75.00

9 Sweet flag 2.0% 62.73c 73.43

b 83.24

b 85.74

bcd 76.28

c 15.00

e 52.00

ab 67.00

10 Garlic + neemoil 2.0% + 2.0% 48.88de

74.89b 71.72

cd 81.40

bcd 69.23

cdef 23.00

cd 38.00

d 61.00

11 Biocare 4 ml/l 82.04b 75.81

b 100.00

a 89.48

b 86.

b83 5.00

g 53.00

ab 58.00

12 Dicofol 4 ml/l 28.66h 56.15

e 71.67

cd 80.79

cd 59.32

g 38.00

a 22.00

e 60.00

13 Untreated - 100.00a 100.00

a 100.00

a 100.00

a 100.00

a 0.00

h 39.00

d 39.00

CV (%) 5.35 5.35 5.39 5.18 5.32 16.06 6.04

CD at 5% 4.96 6.46 7.04 7.28 6.44 4.91 4.71


Table 21. Bio-efficacy of botanicals on the damage grading of nuts due to A. guerreronis

Percentage of damaged nuts in Sl. No.

Treatments Dosage Bunch 5 Bunch 6 Bunch 7 Bunch 8 Average

1 Turmeric 2.0% 1.87bc

1.84b 1.92

bc 2.89

c 2.13

bc

2 NSKE 5.0% 1.15a 1.61

ab 1.58

a 2.06

b 1.60

a

3 KKG-56 2.0% 2.13c 2.72

d 2.65

d 3.46

d 2.74

d

4 KNG-47 2.0% 2.00c 2.68

d 2.69

d 3.52

d 2.72

d

5 KKS-56 2.0% 1.87bc

2.05c 2.25

c 2.99

cd 2.29

c

6 KNS-47 2.0% 1.98bc

2.09c 2.29

c 3.07

cd 2.34

c

7 Neemazal 5% 5 ml/l 1.51ab

1.92b 1.91

bc 2.13

b 1.86

b

8 Neem oil 3.0% 1.40a 1.91

b 1.65

a 2.22

b 1.79

b

9 Sweet flag 2.0% 1.98c 2.62

d 2.62

c 3.38

d 2.65

c

10 Garlic + neemoil 2.0% + 2.0% 1.48ab

1.58a 1.84

a 2.85

c 1.93

bc

11 Biocare 4 ml/l 2.98d 3.10

d 2.89

d 3.98

c 3.23

e

12 Dicofol 4 ml/l 1.22a 1.44

a 1.44

a 1.22

a 1.33

a

13 Untreated - 3.14d 3.18

d 3.01

d 3.68

c 3.75

e

CV (%) 12.88 9.21 7.89 11.58 10.64

CD at 5% 0.40 0.34 0.38 0.52 0.38


Table 22. Effect of spray schedule on active stages of mite of A. guerreronis

Number of active stages of mites per 28.28 mm² area Sep October November December January February

Sl. No.

Treatments No. of adults

No. of adults

% redn. Over UTC

No. of adults

% redn. Over UTC

No. of adults

% redn. Over UTC

No. of adults

% redn. Over UTC

No. of adults

% redn. Over UTC

1. 2 sprays/year (April and October)

85.36a 83.44

b 9.18

c 78.33

b 15.04

e 79.48

b 10.74

d 77.36

b 14.77

d 71.44

bc 22.39

de

2. 3 sprays/year (April, October and December)

85.32a 76.94

bc 16.25

bc 44.73

de 51.44

bc 70.73

c 20.61

c 39.80

e 56.07

a 65.78

c 28.59

d

3. 4 sprays/year (January, April, July and October)

84.52a 79.08

bc 13.86

bc 44.51

de 51.67

bc 68.87

c 22.70

c 76.99

b 15.12

d 45.13

de 50.97

bc

4. 6 sprays/year (January, March, May, July, September and November)

80.95a 42.84

d 53.37

a 58.06

c 37.03

d 37.85

d 57.51

b 52.62

d 42.05

b 35.99

ef 60.92

ab

5. 2 root feeding/year (April and October)

79.96a 72.28

c 21.34

b 38.92

f 57.80

a 64.77

c 27.22

c 71.82

bc 20.81

cd 75.28

b 18.31

e

6. 3 root feeding/year (April, October and December)

84.38a 75.34

c 18.01 39.90

ef 56.70

ab 64.63

c 27.48

c 36.08

e 60.17

a 46.35

d 49.74

c

7. 4 root feeding/year (January, April, July and October)

82.66a 73.91

c 19.66

b 42.71

ef 53.65

ab 67.91

c 23.77

c 69.12

c 23.76

c 40.99

de 55.47

bc

8. 6 root feeding/year (January, March, May, July, September and November)

82.60a 38.43

d 58.16

a 48.44

d 47.44

c 30.26

e 66.01

a 48.45

d 46.54

b 30.03

f 67.37

a

9. Untreated control 84.65a 91.96

a - 92.18

a - 89.10

a - 90.78

a - 92.08

a -

S.Em± - 2.26 2.51 1.61 1.69 1.99 2.23 2.45 2.60 2.94 3.19

CD at 5% - 6.76 7.54 4.83 5.06 5.98 6.69 7.34 7.81 8.83 9.57

CV (%) - 5.54 12.68 5.15 7.09 5.42 13.59 6.78 14.53 9.12 14.07


Table 22. Contd…....

Number of active stages of mites per 28.28 mm² area March April May June July August

Sl. No.

Treatments No. of adults

% redn. Over UTC

No. of adults

% redn. Over UTC

No. of adults

% redn. Over UTC

No. of adults

% redn. Over UTC

No. of adults

% redn. Over UTC

No. of adults

% redn. Over UTC


71.32b 17.82

d 76.66

b 16.40

d 41.70

c 50.76

b 63.65

b 28.70

b 72.04

b 18.37

c 75.64

b 9.91

c


71.25b 17.97

d 76.22

b 16.83

d 35.94

cd 57.44

ab 64.17

b 28.22

b 68.01

b 22.91

c 75.62

b 9.91

c


64.41cb

25.93bc

68.18c 25.70

c 40.06

c 52.75

b 61.25

b 31.47

b 69.61

b 21.15

c 37.75

c 54.95

b


44.84e 48.50

a 31.22

d 65.96

b 42.15

c 50.11

c 31.51

c 64.62

a 45.58

c 48.34

b 39.82

c 52.48

b


70.03bc

19.25cd

72.96bc

20.41cd

40.01c 52.91

b 64.07

b 28.13

b 68.20

b 22.66

c 75.08

b 10.47

c


68.26bc

21.34bcd

73.73bc

19.50cd

36.02cd

57.68ab

62.63b 29.87

b 66.48

b 24.59

c 75.33

b 10.13

c


61.79d 28.70

b 68.27

c 25.51

c 31.41

c 62.89

a 57.35

b 35.69

b 68.19

b 22.69

c 36.87

c 56.02

b


42.19e 51.57

a 22.48

e 75.46

a 52.04

b 38.78

c 30.02

c 66.19

a 38.36

d 56.47

a 25.84

d 69.23

a

9. Untreated control 87.18a - 91.62

a - 84.85

a - 89.34

a - 88.22

a - 83.92

a -

S.Em± 2.05 2.37 1.89 2.01 2.39 2.67 2.63 2.71 2.18 2.44 2.50 2.96

CD at 5% 6.13 7.11 5.66 6.03 7.16 8.00 7.88 8.13 6.53 7.33 7.50 8.87

CV (%) 5.49 15.99 5.07 11.80 9.21 9.83 7.82 13.52 5.81 14.01 7.42 14.90


reduction (66.01%). The next best treatment was proven to be spray 6 times per year (57.51%). Spray 2 times per year recorded least per cent reduction of mites (10.74%).

In January schedule consisting of root feeding 3 times per year was significantly superior by recording minimum mite population (36.08 mites) which was on par with spray 3 times per year (39.80) followed by root feeding 6 times per year (48.45) and spray 6 times per year (52.62), which were on par with each other. However maximum mite population was recorded with spray 2 times per year (77.36 mites) but was significantly superior over untreated control.

With respect to reduction of mites over untreated control, root feeding 3 times per year was significantly superior with highest per cent reduction (60.17%) over control which was on par with spray 3 times per year (56.07%). However spray 2 times per year (14.77%), spray 4 times per year (15.12%) and root feeding 2 times per year (20.81%) were least superior in reducing the mite population and were on par to each other.

In February month schedule consisting of root feeding 6 times per year was significantly superior in recording the least mite population (30.03) which was on par with spray 6 times per year (35.99), followed by root feeding 4 times per year (40.99) and spray 4 times per year (45.13) which were next proven best treatments and on par to each other where as untreated control recorded highest mite population (92.08).

Data on per cent reduction over control revealed the superiority of root feeding 6 times per year in reducing the mite population to an extent of 67.37 per cent and was significantly superior but was on par with spray 6 times per year (60.92%), while root feeding 2 times per year and spray 2 times per year were least effective treatments with only 18.31 per cent and 22.39 per cent over control respectively and were on par with each other.

In the month of March schedule consisting of root feeding 6 times per year maintained its superiority by recording significantly least mite population (42.19) and was on par with spray 6 times per year (44.84). Root feedings 4 times per year (61.79) and spray 4 times per year (64.41) were next best treatments which were on par with each other. However untreated control recorded significantly highest mite population (87.18).

The per cent reduction of mites over control revealed that root feeding 6 times per year was the best treatment in reducing the mite population (51.57%) and was considered significantly superior but was on par with spray 6 times per year (48.50%). Then followed by root feeding 4 times per year, spray 4 times per year and root feeding 3 times per year with 28.70 per cent, 25.93 per cent and 21.34 per cent respectively which were on par with each other.

In the month of April schedule consisting of root feeding 6 times per year continued to maintain its superiority by recording least mite population (22.48). The next best treatment was proved to be spray 6 times per year spray 4 times per year (68.18), root feedings 4 times per year (68.27), root feeding 3 times per year (72.96) and root feeding 2 times per year (73.73) which were on par with each other.

In per cent reduction, once again root feeding 6 times per year was significantly superior with maximum per cent reduction (75.46) and was followed by spray 6 times per year (65.96). Significantly least superior treatment was found to be spray 2 times per year (16.40) and was on par with spray 3 times per year (16.83), root feeding 3 times per year (20.41) and root feeding 2 times per year (19.50).

In the month of May schedule consisting of root feeding 4 times per year recorded lowest mite population (31.41) which was significantly superior and was on par with spray 4 times per year (35.04) and root feeding 3 times per year (36.02). The remaining next best treatments were on par with each other except for spray 2 times per year (52.09) and untreated control (89.88).

Data on mite population reduction reveals that that root feeding 4 times per year (62.89) was significantly superior in reducing mite population over untreated control and was on par with other treatments like root feeding 3 times per year (57.68) and spray 3 times per year (57.44).

Data of mite population during June, root feeding 6 times per year was significantly superior over all treatments (30.02) and was on par with spray 6 times per year (31.51). Remaining treatments were on par with each other except for untreated control (89.34) which is significantly less superior.

Whereas in per cent reduction over untreated control also shows similar trend of results i.e., root feeding 6 times per year maintained its superiority in reducing the mite population over UTC to an extent of 66.19 per cent and was on par with spray 6 times per year (64.62%). Remaining treatments were on par with each other.

In the month of July the data recorded on mite reveals that root feeding 6 times per year was significantly superior (38.36) over all treatments by recording least mite population which was followed by spray 6 times per year (45.58). Remaining treatments were next best treatments which were on par to each other except for UTC (88.22).

The data on mite population reduction shows that root feeding 6 times per year was significantly superior with maximum per cent reduction (56.47%) over UTC. It was followed by spray 6 times per year with 48.34 per cent. Remaining treatments were were on par with each other.

August month data record envisages that once again root feeding 6 times per year was significantly superior (25.84) over all treatments. It was followed by spray 6 times per year (36.87) which was on par with root feeding 4 times per year (37.75) and spray 4 times per year (39.82).

Similarly in per cent reduction also root feeding 6 times per year was significantly superior with maximum per cent reduction (69.23%) over control. It was followed by spray 6 times per year (56.02), root feeding 4 times per year (54.95%) and spray 4 times per year (52.48%) which were on par with each other. Remaining treatments were less effective but were on par with each other.

4.4.1 Effect of spray and root feeding schedule on eggs of A. guerreronis

The data presented in Table 23 and Fig. 8 indicated that there was no significant difference among the treatments a day before application of treatments.

In the month of October, significant differences among the treatments were observed. Scheduling of root feeding 6 times per year (37.50) emerged as significantly superior treatment. However, it was on par with spray 6 times per year (39.38). The next best treatment was found to be root feeding 3 times per year (77.62).

In per cent reduction, we can see that the maximum reduction of egg population over control was seen in root feeding 6 times per year (57.99%) and was considered significantly superior but was on par with spray 6 times per year (55.91%). It was followed by root feeding 3 times per year (13.11%) which was on par with root feeding 4 times per year (10.97%), spray 3 times per year (10.46%) and root feeding 2 times per year (9.88%).

In November, scheduling of root feeding 4 times per year was significantly superior with least egg population (32.40). It was followed by root feeding 3 times per year (38.67) and was on par with spray 3 times per year (39.90), spray 4 times per year (40.15) and root feeding 2 times per year (40.19).

The data on per cent reduction indicated that root feeding 4 times per year was significantly superior with highest per cent reduction (64.75%). The next best treatments were found to be root feeding 3 times per year (57.93%), spray 3 times per year (56.59%), spray 3 times per year and root feeding 4 times per year and were on par with each other.

In December month scheduling of root feeding 6 times per year was significantly super with minimum egg population (34.62). It is followed by spray 6 times per year, root feeding 2 times per year whereas untreated control was least effective treatment with more number of eggs (90.35).

Data in per cent reduction reveals that root feeding 6 times per year was significantly superior in recording maximum reduction of egg load (61.57%) over untreated control. It was followed by spray 6 times per year (58.37%). The next best treatment was root feeding 2 times per year (31.09%) which war on par with root feeding 4 times per year (25.90).

Table 23. Effect of spray schedule on eggs population of A. guerreronis

September October November December January February Sl. No.

Treatments No. of eggs

No. of eggs

% redn. Over UTC

No. of eggs

% redn. Over UTC

No. of eggs

% redn. Over UTC

No. of eggs

% redn. Over UTC

No. of eggs

% redn. Over UTC


89.25a 85.23

ab 4.58

cd 45.59

c 50.40

c 76.44

b 15.39

f 79.39

b 12.36

f 84.04

b 7.09

f


87.68a 79.98

bc 10.46

bc 39.90

cd 56.59

b 70.48

bc 21.99

de 41.93

e 53.72

a 74.14

c 18.02

e


88.41a 85.67

ab 4.10

d 40.15

cd 56.33

b 74.35

b 17.71

ef 80.60

b 11.04

f 40.97

ef 54.70

bc


86.23a 39.98

d 55.91 65.09

b 29.19

d 41.22

e 54.37

b 69.11

c 23.72

c 43.18

e 52.25

c


90.41a 80.49

bc 9.83

bc 40.19

cd 56.28

b 62.26

d 31.09

c 72.33

c 20.27

d 79.36

bc 12.26

ef


85.23a 77.62

c 13.11

b 38.67

d 57.93

b 71.27

bc 21.12

def 41.01

e 54.74

a 68.25

d 24.54

d


88.48a 79.52

bc 10.97

bc 32.40

e 64.75

a 66.95

cd 25.90

cd 75.30

bc 16.88

e 35.93

f 60.28

b


89.62a 37.50

d 57.99

a 68.99

b 24.95

d 34.62

f 61.67

a 61.47

d 32.16

b 28.92

g 68.02

a

9. Untreated control 91.43a 89.33

a - 91.22

a - 90.35

a - 90.60

a - 90.46

a -

CV (%) - 5.10 9.68 6.58 7.24 12.75 11.94 5.07 7.05 5.16 10.74

CD at 5% - 6.42 3.11 5.86 5.52 6.18 5.72 5.96 3.04 5.41 6.13


Table 23. Contd…....


March April May June July August Sl. No.

Treatments

No. of eggs

% redn. Over UTC

No. of eggs

% redn. Over UTC

No. of eggs

% redn. Over UTC

No. of eggs

% redn. Over UTC

No. of eggs

% redn. Over UTC

No. of eggs

% redn. Over UTC


86.70a 3.90

e 89.72

ab 2.36

f 44.23

cd 51.87

bc 71.45

bc 17.56

f 81.22

ab 6.90

f 82.33

a 6.70

d


79.18b 12.30

d 83.60

bc 9.00

e 45.38

c 50.61

c 76.61

b 11.61

g 83.32

ab 4.49

g 83.17

a 5.71

d


71.36cd

20.97b 84.05

bc 8.52

e 40.94

cd 55.45

abc 68.77

c 20.65

ef 75.96

bc 12.23

e 39.52

c 55.19

b


70.17cd

22.20b 46.49

d 49.40

b 73.25

b 20.30

d 39.22

e 54.75

b 65.30

d 25.15

a 33.55

c 61.95

a


80.24b 11.12

d 83.30

bc 9.33

e 40.69

cd 55.72

abc 68.15

c 21.36

e 74.30

bcd 14.83

d 75.10

b 14.85

c


75.41bc

16.48c 78.50

c 14.56

c 39.13

cd 57.41

ab 57.74

d 33.38

c 71.35

cd 18.21

c 75.95

b 13.93

c


68.29d 24.36

b 80.71

c 12.14

d 38.2

d 58.41

a 61.36

d 29.20

d 75.52

bc 13.43

de 39.71

c 54.99

b


62.23e 31.08

a 38.06

e 58.57

a 70.27

b 23.53

d 34.81

e 59.83

a 68.17

cd 21.86

e 33.24

c 62.30

a

9. Untreated control 90.29a - 91.88

a - 91.92

a - 86.67

a - 87.24

a - 88.28

a -

CV (%) 5.84 12.77 5.09 5.57 6.59 8.00 5.00 6.60 6.81 6.88 5.72 6.51

CD at 5% 5.96 3.50 6.51 1.75 6.13 5.74 5.43 3.15 8.94 1.55 6.05 3.44

1.99 1.16 2.17 0.58 2.04 1.91 1.81 1.05 2.98 0.51 2.02 1.15


In January, root feeding 3 times per year recorded significantly least egg load (41.01) and was on par with spray 3 times per year (41.93) they were followed by root feeding 6 times per year (61.47).

In per cent reduction the data records show that root feeding 3 times per year was significantly superior over all treatments by recording maximum per cent reduction (54.74%) and was on par with spray 3 times per year (53.72%). Minimum per reduction was recorded in spray 2 times per year (12.36%) and was found on par with spray 4 times per year (11.04%).

In February month schedule consisting of root feeding 6 times per year continued to maintain its superiority by recording least egg load (28.92). It was followed by root feeding 4 times per year (35.93) and spray 6 times per year (43.18). Whereas spray 2 times per year was least effective (54.04) with maximum egg load however it was significantly superior over UTC.

The per cent reduction of eggs over untreated control indicated that root feeding 6 times per year treatment emerged as a significantly superior treatment by suppressing 68.02 per cent eggs over control. The next best treatments were root feeding 4 times per year (60.28%) and spray 4 times per year (54.70%) which were on par with each other.

In the month of March, schedule consisting of root feeding 6 times per year continued to maintain its superiority with lowest egg load (62.23). It was followed by root feeding 4 times per year (68.29) which was on par with spray 6 times per year (70.17) and spray 4 times per year (71.36), whereas treatment receiving spray 2 times per year and UTC were inferior to rest of the treatments and were on par with each other.

With respect to per cent reduction of eggs over control, scheduling root feeding 6 times per year proved to be effective with 31.02 per cent reduction of eggs. The next best treatments were root feeding 4 times per year, spray 6 times per year and spray 4 times per year with per cent reduction of 24.36, 22.28 and 20.97 respectively.

In April month schedule consisting of root feeding 6 times per year (38.06) was significantly superior which was followed by spray 6 times per year (46.49). Remaining treatments were on par with each other except for spray 2 times per year (89.72) and UTC (91.88).

The per cent reduction over control indicated that treatment which has the scheduling of root feeding 6 times per year continued to maintain its superiority with maximum per cent reduction of eggs (58.57%) over control. The next best treatments were spray 6 times per year (49.40%). Least effective chemical was proven to be spray 2 times per year with only 2.36 per cent reduction.

In May month schedule consisting of root feeding 4 times per year was significantly superior over all treatments (38.22) which was on par with root feeding 3 times per year (39.13), root feeding 2 times per year (40.69), spray 3 times per year (40.94) and spray 2 times per year (44.23). The next best treatment was spray 3 times per year (45.38).

With regard to per cent reduction over control among the different treatments, root feeding 4 times per year was significantly superior by recording 58.41 per cent reduction of eggs but was on par with root feeding 3 times per year (57.41%), root feeding 2 times per year (55.72%) and spray 3 times per year (55.45%).

In June schedule consisting of root feeding 6 times per year was significantly superior overall treatments (34.81) and was on par with spray 6 times per year (39.22). The next best treatments were root feeding 3 times per year (57.74) and root feeding 4 times per year (61.36) which were also on par with each other.

Among different treatments in reducing the mite population, once again root feeding 6 times per year was significantly superior (59.83%). The next best treatments were spray 6 times per year (54.75%), root feeding 3 times per year (33.38%) and root feeding 4 times per year (29.20%).

In July schedule consisting of spray 6 times per year once again was significantly superior over all (65.30) and was on par with root feeding 6 times per year (68.17), root feeding 3 times per year (71.35) and root feeding 2 times per year (74.30).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9

Treatments

Fig. 8. Effect of spray schedule on mite population of A. guerreronis

LEGEND

T1- 2 sprays/year (April and October)

T2- 3 sprays/year (April, October and

December)

T3- 4 sprays/year (January, April, July

and October)

T4- 6 sprays/year (January, March,

May, July, September and

November)

T5- 2 root feeding/year (April and

October)

T6- 3 root feeding/year (April, October

and December)

T7- 4 root feeding/year (January, April,

July and October)

T8- 6 root feeding/year (January,

March, May, July, September and

November)

T9- Untreated control

Avera

g n

o.

of

adu

lts

Fig. 8. Effect of spray schedule on mite population of A. guerreronis

Table 24. Effect of spray schedule on nut yields and damage


Treatments

Bunch 5 Bunch 6 Bunch 7 Bunch 8 Average Healthy Damaged Total nuts

Net returns

Gross returns

B:C ratio

1 2 sprays/year (April and October) 86.17e 85.42

e 84.64

e 83.72

d 84.98

e 8

e 43

d 51 300 384 1:4.57

2 3 sprays/year (April, October and December)

61.53d 68.06d 72.72d 77.03cd 69.83d 22de 39d 61 920 1056 1:7.76

3 4 sprays/year (January, April, July and October)

36.52c 56.77

c 67.54

c 62.96

b 55.94

c 35

cd 18

a 53 1512 1680 1:10.00

4 6 sprays/year (January, March, May, July, September and November)

12.77a 37.37

b 54.25

b 41.06

a 36.36

ab 48

b 25

b 73 2072 2304 1:9.93

5 2 root feeding/year (April and October)

61.09d 66.21

d 78.12

de 73.87

c 69.82

d 15

e 32

c 47 620 720 1:7.20

6 3 root feeding/year (April, October and December)

35.89c 52.15

c 73.33

d 60.73

b 55.52

c 30

d 28

c 58 1290 1440 1:9.60

7 4 root feeding/year (January, April, July and October)

26.29b 43.03bc 61.32c 55.55b 46.54b 38c 18a 56 1624 1824 1:9.12

8 6 root feeding/year (January, March, May, July, September and November)

11.93a 29.66a 41.32a 36.36a 29.80a 59a 25b 84 2532 2832 1:9.44

9 Untreated control 98.46f 88.29

e 100.00

f 100.00

e 96.68

e 5

f 50

e 55 - - -

CV (%) 10.61 11.43 6.78 7.04 8.96 9.83 6.48

CD at 5% 6.08 7.48 6.80 10.01 7.59 8.00 6.05


Cost of monocrotophos – 500/litre Cost of healthy nuts – Rs. 8/nut

In per cent reduction of eggs over control, it can be seen that scheduling of spray 6 times per year was very effective and was significantly superior (25.15%). It was followed by root feeding 6 times per year (21.86%) and root feeding 3 times per year (18.21%). Once again spray 2 times per year was least superior with only 6.90 per cent reduction of eggs over control.

In August schedule consisting of root feeding 6 times per year was significantly superior with minimum egg load (33.24) and was on par with spray 6 times per year (33.55), spray 4 times per year (39.52) and root feeding 4 times per year (39.71).

The per cent reduction the data indicated that root feeding 6 times per year was significantly superior with maximum per cent reduction of eggs (62.30%) over control and was on par with spray 6 times per year (61.95%) followed by root feeding 4 times per year (54.99%) and on par with spray 4 times per year (55.19%).

4.4.2 Effect of spray schedule on mite damage level of nuts

It is clear from the Table 24 that in most of the treatments the percentage of damaged nuts increased from 5

th bunch to 8

th bunch as the age of the nuts advanced. Average of

damaged nuts showed that scheduling of root feeding 6 times per year showed lowest percentage of damaged nuts (29.80%) and was on par with 6 sprays per year (36.36%). The scheduling of root feeding 4 times per year proved to be next best treatment (46.54%), whereas scheduling of only spray 2 times per year was least effective (84.98%). As usual untreated control recorded highest per cent of damaged nuts (96.98%).

In case of healthy nuts, palms treated with root feeding 6 times per year recorded more number of healthy nuts (59 nuts). Application of spray 6 times per year was proved to be next best treatment (48 nuts) followed by root feeding 4 times per year (38 nuts) which was on par with spray 4 times per year (35 nuts), root feeding 2 times per year (15) and spray 2 times per year (8) recorded less number of healthy nuts but were superior over untreated control.

With respect to damaged nuts, root feeding 4 times per year recorded least number of damaged nuts (18) and was on par with spray 4 times per year (18). The next best treatments were found to be root feeding 6 times per year (25) and spray 6 times per year (25) which were on par with each other.

Highest total number of nuts were recorded in the treatment, root feeding 6 times per year (84) followed by spray 6 times per year whereas root feeding 2 times per year recorded lowest number of nuts (47).

V. DISCUSSION

Results of the investigations carried out on coconut perianth mite, Aceria guerreronis (K.) with respect to surveillance, effect of pesticides and biopesticides and development of suitable spray schedule in the management are discussed below the light of earlier works.

5.1 SURVEILLANCE OF COCONUT MITE, A. guerreronis POPULATION AND ITS NATURAL ENEMIES

5.1.1 Mite population

Results of the seasonal incidence of A. guerreronis in coconut ecosystem recorded from July 2003 to July 2004 revealed that the mite population on the nut surface ranged from 50.01 to 105.73 mites per 28.28 mm² area. The population of mite was relatively less from second fortnight of July (50.20) to October (54.31). This may be due to showers during that period. The mite population was relatively more from second fortnight of November (60.90) to second fortnight of May (105.73) which may be attributed due to favourable warm and dry climate.

The mite population on perianth fluctuated from lowest of 18.28 (first fortnight of June 04) to the highest of 58.52 (second fortnight May). In the remaining period, the mite population on perianth almost constant. Fluctuations in the mite population may be due to the variation in weather parameters like temperature, relative humidity, rainfall and wind speed during the period of investigations. The mite population was more on nut surface than on perianth which might be due to more succulency of the nut surface.

The present findings are in confirmatory with Zuluaga and Sonches (1971) and Griffith (1984) who observed the presence of mites throughout the year with severe infestation during relatively dry climates or during the dry periods of wetter climates. Haq (1999b) also reported that variation in the incidence of mite population may be due to difference in the rainfall. Sujata and Chalapati Rao (2004) have concluded that decreased population counts were observed during rainy and winter months where high relative humidity prevailed when compared to summer months.

5.1.2 Egg population

The egg population recorded on the nut surface ranged from 38.81 to 88.68 mites per 28.28 mm² area. The first peak occurrence of eggs of an eriophyid mite was seen during first fortnight of September (75.61) and the second peak was observed during second fortnight of May (88.68). Egg load on perianth was low in second fortnight of August (18.67) followed by second fortnight of November (19.68). More number of eggs were recorded in the first fortnight of May (49.05). In remaining period, the egg population was in the range of 20.64 to 32.56.


The present study indicated that damaged nuts were observed throughout the year. The percentage of damaged nuts varied from 85.69 to 97.82.

The present findings are in agreement with that of Moore and Alexander (1987) who reported that no nut surface damage was seen on the month old bunches, whereas, maximum nuts in older bunches were in damaged categories of IV and V. Muthiah and Bhaskaran (1999) also observed that most of the infested nuts were in the damage category II and III and very few nuts were completely damaged.

5.1.4 Relationship between mite and egg population and weather parameters

Maximum temperature had positive significant effect on the mite population and egg population whereas rainfall had significant negative association with egg recorded on perianth and also with humidity and wind speed. Whereas, remaining weather parameters had no significant relationship with either the mite or egg population.

Varadarajan (2000) and Ramaraju et al. (2003) reported that there was no clear relationship between mite population and weather parameters. Kannaiyan et al. (2000) reported that fairly high mite populations were recorded even during rainy months.

5.2 EVALUATION OF PESTICIDES AND BIOPESTICIDES AGAINST PERIANTH MITE UNDER LABORATORY CONDITIONS

Before carrying out the evaluation, under field conditions, laboratory evaluation was done. For the purpose chemicals selected were monocrotophos, dicofol, ethion, dimethoate, triazophos, propargite, endosulfan, fenazaquin, wettable sulphur, oxydemeton methyl, omite, fenpyroximate, bifenazate and phosolone. Some of the botanicals evaluated were neem oil, NSKE, azadirachtin, turmeric, pepper and sweetflag. Among these treatments, significant differences were seen in reducing the mite population. Fenazaquin was significantly superior over all treatments in reducing the mite population at all days of observation. The mite population was reduced to an extent of 24.62 mites per 28.28 mm² area of nut surface. NSKE 5 per cent was found to be the best treatment among botanicals which recorded minimum mite population of 28.66 mites per 28.28 mm² area of nut surface. However, monocrotophos (25.50) and dicofol (30.66) were other best treatments which were on par with fenazaquin.

5.2.1 Efficacy of pesticides and biopesticides against active stages and eggs of A. guerreronis

Chemicals namely fenazaquin, propurgite, monocrotophos, dicofol, oxydemeton methyl, phasolone, wettable sulphur, triazophos and floramite were evaluated against perianth mite, Aceria guerreronis. Among these different chemicals fenazaquin @ 2 ml per litre of water was found to be significantly superior over all other treatments in reducing the mite population to an extent of about 76.07 per cent at 21 DAS (Plate 2). It was found to be a safer acaricide being selective in action sparing the most predominant group of predatory phytosiid mite, Amblyseius spp. However, it was on par with monocrotophos @ 4 ml per litre of water and dicofol @ 4 ml/l with 68.73 and 66.15 per cent reduction of mite population respectively at 21 DAS. Next best treatment was found to be wettable sulphur which recorded 65.62 per cent reduction in mite population at 21 DAS. Same trends of results were seen in other two sprays. Even in reduction of egg population also same trend of effect was observed.

These findings are in conformity with Dey et al. (2001) who reported that spraying fenazaquin at 10 ml per palm directly on crown region significantly reduced mite population at 8 DAS, followed by dicofol and monocrotophos.

However, Muthiah and Bhaskaran (1999) reported that spraying of methyl dimeton @ 4 ml/l reduced the nuts damaged by mites to an extent of 24.9 per cent followed by monocrotophos @ 1.5 ml/l gave 25.1 per cent reduction. Kannaiyan et al. (2000) reported that spraying of triazophos 40 EC, monocrotophos 36 SL @ 5 ml/l were effect in reducing population. However, spraying dicofol @ 6 ml per litre of water at monthly interval gave effective control of mite infestation (Vidyasagar, 2000 and Shivaramreddy and Naik, 2000).

Natarajan et al. (2002) reported that spraying of triazophos 40 EC 5 ml/l, methyl demeton 25 EC 4 ml/l or monocrotophos 36 SL 1.5 ml/l ws found to significantly reduce mite population and root feeding of monocrotophos 15 ml + 15 ml water is effective. Nair (2004) reported that trials carried out with micronieed wettable formulation of sulphur have proved to be successful in controlling mites @ 0.4 per cent concentration.

5.2.1.1 Per cent damaged nuts

The present findings indicates that monocrotophos was the most effective chemical which recorded least per cent damaged nuts (24.80%). Fenazaquin (30.97%) and dicofol (31.07%) were the next best treatments whereas highest percentage of damaged nuts were observed in case of untreated palms (100%) (Plate 4).

The present findings are in agreement with Muthaih and Bhaskaran (1999) who reported that spraying o methyl demeton @ 4 ml/l and monocrotophos @ 1.5 ml/l at 10 days interval recorded 24.9 and 25.1 per cent damaged nuts at 90 days after treatment. Kannaiyan et al. (2000) also reported that spraying of triazophos 40 EC and monocrotophos 36 SL @ 5

Plate 2. Healthy nut in fenazapuin treated palms

Plate 3. Healthy nuts in NSKE treated palms

Plate 4. infested nuts in untreated palms

ml/l were found to be highly effective in recording lesser mite population and higher undamaged buttons of 100 an d100 per cent respectively, 4 months after the first spray.

More number of healthy nuts were observed in dicifol sprayed palms (68.00). The next best chemicals were monocrotophos (48.00), where in untreated control healthy nuts were not observed.

5.2.1.2 Damage grading

An average damage grading was lowest in monocrotophos (1.23) which was on par with fenazaquin (1.35) and dicofol (1.52). the next best treatments were found to be wettable sulphur (1.60) and propargite (1.82). The untreated palm recorded maximum damage grading (3.22).

5.3 BIO-EFFICACY OF BOTANICALS AGAINST ACTIVE STAGES OF A. guerreronis

Botanicals namely turmeric, NSKE, KKG-56, KNG-46, KNG-47, KKS-56, KNS-47, azadirachtin 5%, neem oil, sweet flag, garlic + neem oil, biocare and dicofol as standard check were evaluated against A. guerreronis. Among the botanicals NSKE 5 per cent was found significantly superior treatment as it recorded 28.64 per cent reduction of mite over control at 7 days after first spray and then onwards increased gradually recording maximum reduction of 64.40 and 71.46 per cent at 21 and 28 days respectively after I spray (Plate 3). Next best botanicals were neem oil and azadirachtin which recorded 26.22 and 23.56 per cent reduction of mites respectively over control at 7 days after first spray and maximum of 67.06 and 64.86 per cent reduction of mites at 28 days after first spray. Biocare and KNG-47 were least effective botanicals. In second and third spray similar trend of the effect was observed. Superiority of the neem product compared to other botanicals may be due to its azadirachtin content, which exhibited high ovicidal, antifeedent and insecticidal property resulting in suppression of mite population.

Along with botanicals, dicofol was used as standard check which maintained superiority over all the botanicals in all the spray.

The present findings are in agreement with Balaji and Hariprasad (2003) who reported that NSKE @ 5 per cent was found effective in managing the mite. Thirumal et al. (2003) observed effective reduction of mite population with application of NSKE (10%). Ramaraju et al. (2000) observed that TNAU neem oil 60 EC three per cent gave 55.14 per cent mite mortality.


In the present findings different botanicals were found effective in reducing the damage level of nuts. Among the botanicals, NSKE 5 per cent and neem oil were the best treatments which recorded 53.58 and 63.68 per cent damaged nuts. Standard check dicofol recorded lowest percentage of damaged nuts (59.62%) and also highest number of healthy nuts (38.00). This might be due to lowest mite population above treatments.

5.3.2 Damage grading

In the present findings, NSKE 5 per cent was the best proven botanical which recorded least damage grading 1.60 among botanicals. The next best treatments were found to be neemazal 5 per cent, neem oil and garlic + neem oil with damaged grades of 1.86, 1.79 and 1.93 respectively. The standard check dicofol was the superior chemical in recording least damage grade level (1.33).

5.4 DEVELOPMENT OF SUITABLE SPRAY SCHEDULE OF SPRAY AND ROOT FEEDING ON MITE POPULATION

Treatments like spray 2 times per year (April and October), spray 3 times per year (April, October, December), spray 4 times per year (January, April, July, October) and spray 6 times per year (January, March, May, July, September, November) and similarly root feeding at same schedules were evaluated against A. guerreronis with monocrotophos chemical. Among the different treatments, scheduling of root feeding 6 times per year at two

months interval during January, March, May, July, September and November was found significantly superior over all other treatments in reducing the mite population at every interval. It recorded maximum of 21.86 per cent reduction over control. This may be due to frequent intervals of scheduling. However, it was on par with spray 6 times per year (January, March, May, July, September and November).

In per cent damaged nuts, root feeding 6 times per year was effective with minimum per cent damaged nuts (29.80%). More number of healthy nuts were recorded in case of root feeding 6 times per year (59) and total number of nuts were also more (84) in this treatment.

Due to lack of reviews in this content, the present findings can be correlated with findings of Anonymous (2002) who recommended 3 sprays per year at 3 months cultural i.e. during April, September and December to minimise the mite population.

FUTURE LINE OF WORK

• Combined effect of neem products and fungal agents should become a handy tool in controlling the eriophyid mite

• An alternative chemical/botanical as effective as monocrotophos for root feeding and spraying is necessary to identify to safeguard environmental concerns and also to prevent the development of resistance

• Long-term work on bioagents can be carried out to avoid the resistance

VI. SUMMARY

The investigations on surveillance of coconut mite and natural enemies, influence of chemicals and biopesticides under lab and field conditions and development of suitable schedule for application of chemical in the form of spray and root feedings against coconut perianth mite, Aceria guerreronis Keifer were carried out during 2003-04 at coconut gardens in Dharwad taluk. The salient aspects of investigations are summarized below.

Studies on surveillance of mite and its natural enemies in Dharwad taluk, indicated that the mite population occurred throughout the year with variation during different season of the year. The mite population was high during the period from January to May 2004. The population started declining with the onset of monsoon during second fortnight of June 2004 and again increased during December. The mite and egg populations were positively correlated with temperature and negatively correlated with relative humidity. The symptoms of damage on nut surface due to feeding of the mite were classified into different categories, most of nuts fall in damage categories 111 and most of the coconut palms were bearing more than 85 per cent damaged nuts.

Evaluation of pesticides and biopesticides was carried out in laboratory conditions before going for direct field evaluation. Among different treatments, fenazaquin 10 EC @ 2 ml/l was significantly superior in reducing the mite population and was on par with monocrotophos 36 SL @ 4 ml/l, dicofol 18.5 EC @ 4 ml/l and NSKE 5 per cent. Efficiency was checked at 2, 5 and 7 days after treatment.

The spraying of insecticides and acaricides was then carried out at 3 months interval against A. guerreronis under field conditions. Among different treatments, fenazaquin 10 EC @ 2 ml/lit was significantly superior in reducing both egg and active stages of mite population and was on par with monocrotophos 36 SL @ 4 ml/lit and dicofol 18.5 EC @ 4 ml/lit. The efficiency of treatments continued upto 21 days but later the mite population again started rising. Throughout the experimental period these treatments were found superior in recording minimum mite population. With regard to per cent damaged nuts, fenazaquin recorded lower per cent damaged nuts (30.97) but however monocrotophos was superior with least number of damaged nuts (24.80). With respect to healthy nuts and total number of nuts, dicofol was superior with 68 nuts was 96 nuts, respectively.

The spraying of botanicals three times at an interval of 3 months against A. guerreronis indicated that among the different botanicals NSKE 5 per cent was found to be effective and significantly superior at different intervals of observations in reducing the mite and egg population. NSKE continued to be effective in suppressing the population of the mite upto 21 days after treatment. Neem oil @ 3 per cent and neemazal @ 5 ml/lit were proved to be next best treatments. The standard check dicofol @ 4 ml per lit was superior over all treatments in minimising the mite population, whereas sweet flag and biocare throughout the experiment maintained their inferiority in reducing mite population.

With regard to their efficacy on nut damage NSKE 5 per cent was significantly superior in recording least per cent damaged nuts (57.58). Maximum healthy nuts (36) and total nuts (89) were recorded in NSKE 5 per cent which was followed by neem oil and neemazal. Dicofol, NSKE 5 per cent, neem oil and neemazal sprayed palms recorded less damage grade nuts.

Among the different schedules, the treatment consisting of root feeding 6 times per year which was scheduled at two months interval during January, March, May, July, September and November was significantly superior in reducing the mite (both active stages and egg) population and was also superior in recording minimum number of damaged nuts. The treatment consisting of spray 2 times per year scheduled at 6 months interval i.e. during April and October was significantly inferior in reducing the mite population.

VII. REFERENCES

AMRITHA, V.S., SARADAMMA, K., HEBSY, B., BEEVI, S.N. AND BAI, H., 2002, Products of the management of coconut eriophyid mite Aceria guerreronis Keifer. Insect Environment, 8(3): 104-105.

ANONYMOUS, 2002, Evaluation of efficiency of acaricides, applied singly and in mixtures, for control of Aceria guerreronis Keifer, 1985 (Prostigmata : Eriophyidae), a mite causing coconut necrosis in the valley of San Francisco. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, 24(1): 72-76.

ARTHANARI, P.M., BALASUBRAMANIAN, T.N., ELVARAJU, R. AND KANNALYAN, S., 2002, Influence of weather parameters on eriophyid mite. Journal of Agrometerology, 4(2): 153-157.

BALAJI, K. AND HARIPRASAD, Y., 2003, Bio-efficacy of some plant products against coconut mite Aceria guerreronis Keifer (Acari: Eriophyidae). Paper presented at National Symposium Bio-Management of Insect Pests, on 29

th, 30

th and 31

st,

March, 2003 at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, p.107. BARKAT, A., SHEREEF, G.M., ABDALLAH, S.S. AND AMER, S.A.A., 1986, Toxic action of

some plant extract against Tetranychus uriticae Koch. Bulletin of Entomological Society, Egypt Economic Series, 14: 230-242.

CHANDRIKA MOHAN AND NAIR, C.P.R., 2000, Distinguish the nut infestation by Eriophyid mite and Coreid bug in coconut. Indian Coconut Journal, 31: 60-61.

CHILD, R., 1974, Coconuts, 2nd

ed. Longman London, UK, p.335. DEY, P.K. AND SOMCHOUDHURY, A.K., 2001, Bio-efficacy of fenpyroximate against

eriophyid mite of coconut (Aceria guerreronis Keifer) and its impact on Amblyseius spp. Pestology, 25: 6-10.

DEY, P.K., SARKAR, P.K., GUPTA, S.K. AND SOMCHOUDHARY, A.K., 2001, Evaluation of fenazaquin against eriophyid mite, A. guerreronis Keifer on coconut vis-à-vis its impact on Amblyseius spp. Pestology, 25(1): 34-39.

FERNANDO, L.C.P., WICKRAMANANDA, I.R. ARTCHIGE, N.S. AND MARAES, G.J., 2002, Studies of coconut mite Aceria guerreronis in Sri Lanka. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Coconut Mite Aceria guerreronis, Coconut Research Institute, Sri Lanka. 6, 2002, pp.1-12.

GOPAL AND GUPTA, A., 2001, Has Hirsutella thomsonii the where withal to counter coconut eriophyid mite scourage. Current Science, 80(7): 831-836.

GRIFFITH, R., 1984, The problem of the coconut mite, Eriophyes guerreronis (Keifer) in the coconut groves of Trinidad and Tobago. In: R. Webb W. Knausenberger and L. Yntema (Editors), Proceedings of 20

th Annual Meeting of the Caribbean Food

Crops Society, East Caribbean Centre, College of the Virgin Islands and Caribbean Food Crops Society, St. Crooix, Virgin Islands, USA, pp. 128-132.

HAQ, M.A., 1999a, Coconut mite threat in Kerala. Journal of Acarology, 14(1&2): 58-63. HAQ, M.A., 1999b, Distribution of the coconut mite Aceria guerreronis in peninsular India and

adjacent islands. Entomon., 24(4): 371-379. HERNADEZ, R.F., 1977, Chemical control of the coconut eriophyid Aceria guerreronis (K.) on

the coast of Guierrero. Agricultural Tecnica en Mexico, 4: 23-28. HOWARD, F.W. AND ABREU-RODRIGUEZ, E. AND DENMARK, H.A., 1990, Geographical

and seasonal distribution of the coconut mite, Aceria guerreronis (Acari: Eriophyidae), in Puerto Rico and Florida, USA. Journal of Agricultural University, Puerto Rico, 74: 237-251.

JULIA, J.F. AND MARIAU, D., 1979, New research on the coconut mite Eriophyes guerreronis (K.) in the Ivory coast. Oleagineux, 34: 181-189.

KANNAIYAN, S., SABITHADORAISAMY, RABINDRA, R.J., RAMAKRISHNA, G. AND BHASKARAN, R., 2000, Integrated packages for the management and control of coconut eriophyid mite. Paper presented during the 66

th Scientific Workers

Conference, held at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore on 19th and

20th July, 2000, pp.7-8.

KEIFER, H.H., 1965, Eriophyid studies 10-14, California, Department of Agriculture Bureau of Entomology, p.20.

MALLIK, B., CHINNAMADE GOWDA, C., SRINIVASA, N. AND ONKARAPPA, S., 2005, Management of coconut eriophyid mite (Aceria guerreronis) insight into a farmers practice. Indian Coconut Journal, 12(9): 3-7.

MARIAU, D. AND JULIA, J.F., 1970, The attack by the mite A. guerreronis a pest of coconut. Oleagineux, 25(8-9): 459-464.

MARIAU, D. AND TCHIBOZO, H.M., 1973, Tests on the chemical control of A. guerreronis (K.). Oleagineux, 28(3): 133-135.

MARIAU, D., 1977, Aceria guerreronis an important pest of African and American coconut groves. Oleagineux, 32(3): 110-111.

McINDOO, I., 1982, USDA, Bureau of Entomological and Plant Quarantine. In: Michael, 1985 plant species reportedly possessing pest control properties: In EWC/UH DATA BASE, University of Hawaii, p.249.

MOHANSUNDARAM, M., KALYANASUNDARAM, S., MAHENDRAN, R. AND SOMASUNDARAM, O.V.R., 1999, Management and control measures for the coconut Eriophyid mite Aceria guerreronis Keifer (Acari: Eriophyidae) in Tamil Nadu. Indian Coconut Journal, 29(9): 8-10.

MOORE, D. AND ALEXANDER, L., 1987a, Stem injection of vamidothion for control of coconut mite E. guerreronis (Keifer) in st. Lucia. Crop Protection, 6(5): 329-333.

MOORE, D. AND ALEXANDER, L., 1987b, Aspects of migration and colonization of the coconut palm by the coconut mite Eriophyes guerreronis Keifer (Acari: Eriophyidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research, 77: 641-650.

MOORE, D., ALEXANDER, L. AND HALLS, R.A., 1989, The coconut mite, Eriophyes guerreronis Keifer in St. Lucia: yield losses and attempts to control it with acaricide, polybutene and Hirsutell fundus. Tropical Pest Management, 35(1): 83-89.

MUTHIAH, C. AND BHASKARAN, R., 1999, Screening of coconut genotypes and management of Eriophyid mite Aceria guerreronis Keifer (Acari: Eriophyidae) in Tamil Nadu. Indian Coconut Journal, 30(6): 10-11.

NAIR, C.P.R., CHANDRIKA MOHAN, SANDHYA, S.R., AND ANAND GOPINATH, 2001, Relationship between infestation index and yield parameters of coconut affected by Aceria guerreronis Keifer. In: IPM in Horticultural Crops: Emerging Trends in the New Millennium (Eds. Abraham Verghese and P. Parvatha Reddy), IIHR, Bangalore, pp.131-132.

NAIR, C.P.R., FERNANADO, C.P., MORAES, G.J. AND WICKRAMANANDA, I.R., 2002, Seasonal abundance of coconut mite. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Coconut mite Aceria guerreronis Coconut Research Institute, Sri Lanka, 6-8 January, 2000, pp.9-12.

NAIR, M.R.G.K., 1975, Insects and Mites of Crops in India, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, p.404.

NATARAJAN, K., RAMARAJU, K., BABU, P.C.S. AND PALANISWAMY, S., 2002, Studies on coconut eriophyid mite, A. guereronis K in Tamil Nadu, India. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Coconut mite, A. guerreronis, Coconut Research Institute, Sri Lanka, 6-8 January, 2000, 18: 13-31.

NIRULA, K.K., 1955, Investigations on the pest of coconut palm Part-I. Indian Coconut Journal, 8: 118-130. PAUL, A. AND MATHEW, T.B., 2002, Eriophyid mite and its effect on quality aspects. Journal

of Plantation Crops, 30(2): 58-60. PRASAD, S.G. AND RANGANATH, H.R., 2000, Occurrence of nut infesting eriophyid mite

Eriophyes guerreronis (K.) in coconut plantations in Andamans. Indian Coconut Journal, 31(6): 17.

RAMARAJU, K., BASKARAN, E.V., VARADARAJAN, M.K. AND PALANISWAMY, S., 2003, Bioecological studies on nut infesting eriophyid mite, Aceria guerreronis K. on coconut. National Symposium on Bio-Management of Insect Pests, 29, 30 and 31

st March, 2003, Abstracts.

RAMARAJU, K., NATARAJAN, K., SUNDARABABU, P.C. AND MURALIRAGINI, G.T., 1999, Management of coconut eriophyid mite Aceria guerreronis in Tamil Nadu. Journal of Acarology, 14(1&2): 82-83.

RAMARAJU, K., NATARAJAN, K., SUNDARABABU, P.C. AND PALANISAMY, S., 2000, Studies on coconut eriophyid mite A. guerreronis K. in Tamil Nadu, India. Paper

Presented at International Workshop on Coconut Eriophyid Mite held at CRI, Sri Lanka, Jan 5-7, 2000 pp.8-9.

RAMARETHINAM, S. AND LOGANATHAN, S., 2000, Biology of Aceria guerreronis Keifer (Acari : Eriophyoidea; Eriophyidae) – Aprerianth mite infesting coconut groves in India. Pestology, 24(6): 6-9.

RAMARETHINAM, S., MARIMUTHU, S.AND MURUGESAN, N.V., 2000, Studies on the effect of entomopathogens H. thompsonii, Verticilium lecanii and Paelilo Myees sp. a neem derivative in the control of coconut mite, A. guerreronis (K.). Pestology, 24(5): 5-7.

SARADAMMA, K., BEEVI, S.N., MATHEW, T.B., SHEELA, M.S. AND VISALAKSHI, A., 2000, Eriophyid mite, Aceria guerreronis Keifer infesting coconut palm in Kerala. Paper Presented in the 4

th International 16

th National Symposium on Recent Trends in

Life Sciences, 7th-9

th February, 2000, Department of Aquatic Biology and

Fisheries, University of Kerala, Trivandrum and Indian Society of Life Sciences, Kanpur.

SATHIAMMA, B., NAIR, C.P.R. AND KOSHY, P.K., 1998, Outbreak of a nut infesting eriophyid mite, Eriophyes guerreronisi (K.) in coconut plantation in India. Indian Coconut Journal, 28: 1-3.

SHIVARAMA REDDY, L. AND NAIK, S.L., 2000, Spread of Eriophyid mites into the coconut gardens of Chittor district, Andhra Pradesh. Indian Coconut Journal, 30: 8-9.

SUJATA, S. AND CHALAPATI RAO, 2004, Surveillance of coconut plant. Indian Coconut Journal, 27: 14-15.

SUJATHA, A., ANILKUMAR, D., RAO, N.B.V.C. AND RAO, V.R., 2004a, Evaluation of certan new chemicals against coconut eriophyid mite, Aceria guerreronis (K.) in Andhra Pradesh. Pestology, 28(3): 7-11.

SUJATHA, A., RAO, N.B.V. AND RAO, V.R., 2004b, Bioefficacy of newer acaricide fenpyroximate 5 per cent EC against coconut eriophyid mite through root feeding. Pestology, 28(11): 24-26.

THIRUMALAI, THEVAN, P.S., SRINIVASAN, T.R., KUMAR, N., MANOHARAN, T. AND MUTHUKRISHNAN, N., 2003, Bio-efficacy of botanicals against coconut eriophyd mite, Aceria guerreronis Keifer. Paper Presented at National Symposium on Bio-Management of Insect Pests, on 29

th, 30

th and 21

st, March 2003 at Tamil Nadu

Agricultural University, Coimbatore, p.107. VARADARAJAN, M.K., 2000, Ecology and management of coconut eriophyid mite. A.

guerreronis Keifer. M.Sc.(Agri.) Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, p.172.

VARDARAJAN, M.K. AND DAVID, P.M.M., 2000, Population dynamics of the coconut mite Aceria guerreronis Keifer (Acari: Eriophyidae) and associated arthropods in Tamil Nadu, India. Insect Science and its Application, 22(1): 47-59.

VIDYASAGAR, P.S.P.V., 2000, Eriophyid mites on coconut and their management. Indian Coconut Journal, 31: 15-16.

ZULUAGA, C. AND SANCHES, P.A., 1971, Larona O Escoriacion delos frutos del Cocotero (Cocos nucifera L.) en Colombia. Oleagineux, 26: 767-776.

MANAGEMENT OF COCONUT PERIANTH MITE, Aceria guerreronis Keifer

PUSHPA V. 2006 Dr. B. S. NANDIHALLI Major advisor

ABSTRACT

The investigations on seasonal abundance of coconut perianth mite, effect of chemicals and biopesticides under lab and field conditions and development of suitable schedule for application of monocrotophos in the form of spray and root feedings against coconut perianth mite, Aceria guerreronis Keifer were carried out during 2003-04 at coconut gardens in Dharwad taluk.

Studies on seasonal abundance of mite and its natural enemies in Dharwad taluk, indicated that the mite population occurred throughout the year with peak population during the dry period from March to May. The population started declining with the onset of monsoon. The mite and egg populations were positively correlated with temperature and negatively correlated with relative humidity. Coconut palms were bearing more than 85 per cent damaged nuts.

Evaluation of pesticides and biopesticides was carried out in laboratory conditions. Among different treatments, fenazaquin 10 EC @ 2 ml/l was significantly superior in reducing the mite population.

Under field evaluation, among different treatments, fenazaquin 10 EC @ 2 ml/lit was significantly superior in reducing both egg and active stages of mite population and was on par with monocrotophos 36 SL @ 4 ml/lit and dicofol 18.5 EC @ 4 ml/lit. With regard to per cent damaged nuts, fenazaquin recorded lower per cent damaged nuts (30.97).

Bioefficacy of botanicals in the management of A. guerreronis indicated that among the different botanicals NSKE 5 per cent was found to be effective and significantly superior at different intervals of observations in reducing the mite and egg population. Neem oil @ 3 per cent and neemazal @ 5 ml/lit were proved to be next best treatments, whereas sweet flag and biocare were significantly inferior in reducing mite population. Maximum healthy nuts (36) and total nuts (89) were recorded in NSKE 5 per cent.

Among the different schedules, the treatment consisting of root feeding 6 times per year which was scheduled at two months interval during January, March, May, July, September and November was significantly superior in reducing the mite (both active stages and egg) population and was also superior in recording minimum number of damaged nuts.

Documents

MANAGEMENT OF COCONUT PERIANTH MITE, Aceria guerreronis