Control of Cotton Spiny Bollworm, Earias insulana Boisduval, Using Three Bio-Insecticides, Bt, Spinosad and Neem-Azal
This study was conducted to evaluate, the more efficient insecticide, between three bio-insecticides used, in a chemical control of spiny bollworm and to compare a purely chemical control, with an integrated control of cotton boll worms, which was already studied by the same authors. Cotton variety vermin planted in a Complete Randomized Block Design (CRBD), with 6 treatments and 5 replications. The treatments were as follows: three concentrations of spinosad, 200,4000 and 10000 ppm, Neem-Azal, 50 ppm, Bt., 3000 ppm and control. Insecticides were sprayed, with an interval of 15 days. For sampling, 10 plants were chosen randomly and weight and number of attacked, or healthy blossomed or blind bolls measured. Results of analysis of variance by MSTAT-C showed that, there is a significantly difference, between use of 200 ppm and use of each of 10000 and 4000 ppm of Spinosad. Between the treatments, those sprayed with 4000 and 10000 ppm of Spinosad had the lowest number of damaged bolls, the plots sprayed with 200 ppm Spinosad had the minimum number of blind damaged bolls, followed by plots, in which Neem-Azal and Bt., were sprayed.
Cotton, the world's major fiber crop is perhaps unique in the broad nature
of the insect attack to which it is subjected and the control of cotton insect
pests remains an unabated challenge (Johnstone, 2006).
Cotton spiny bollworm is the larva of Earias insulana, belonging to the
Noctuidae family. It is one of the most important pests of cotton, in all over
the world and in Iran, the pest, is recorded to be spread in cotton farming
areas (Esmaili et al.,1995; Mirmoayedi,
2009). For control of the pest, we used three insecticides, Spinosad, Neem-azal
and Bt. Spinosad proved to be harmless to predators and parasites in cotton
field (Tillman and Mulrooney, 2000) and with minimum
impact to bees (Cleveland, 2001) and in laboratory conditions,
it was harmless to C. carnea eggs and pupae irrespective of concentrations
or method of treatments (Mandour, 2009). In China, when
Spinosad was used for control of pests, in vegetables such as eggplant, Chinese
cabbages and Cotton the quantities found in sprayed plants didnt surpassed,
the norm of that country (Gao et al., 2007).
Some researchers, observed resistance of pests toward this insecticide, for
example, Hseliothis virescens (F), which was collected from tobacco fields
in North Carolina and reared in laboratory condition showed, a resistance toward
Spinosad, which was 1068-fold greater than the parental generation (Young
et al., 2003). The microbial insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis
(Bt) has become the mainstay of non-chemical control of Lepidopteron pests,
either as sprays or through the incorporation of Bt. toxins into transgenic
crops. Recent years, resistance to B. thuringiensis was observed in populations
of many lepidopteron pests, between them, Trichoplusia ni (Janmaat
and Myers, 2003) Plutella xylostella (Sayyed
and Wright, 2001) Helicoverpa armigera (Akhurst
et al., 2003) Helicoverpa zea, Spodoptera frugiperda,
Spodoptera exigua (Stewart et al., 2001).
The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of three bio-pesticides,
Spinosad, Neem-azal and Bt., in control of cottons spiny bollworm.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This research was done, during spring and summer, in 2008, following a Complete Randomized Block Design (CRBD), with 6 treatments and 5 replications. The 6 treatments were as follows:
with a concentration of 200 ppm
with a concentration of 4000 ppm
with a concentration of 10000 ppm
with a concentration of 50 ppm
thuringiensis, Bt-H, with a concentration of 3000 ppm
Cotton, variety vermin was planted individually by hand in a hole, 15 cm apart, in each of 2.5x4 m plots, each plot had 5 longitudinal rows, 50 cm apart. Seeds were disinfected, before planting, by a 1000 ppm concentration of Carboxin thiram (Vitavax®). In time of seed planting, 125 g of granulate urea, plus 1 kg of potassium phosphate was poured, in inter rows, of each plot. The plants were irrigated, weekly, during 24 weeks.
Analysis of variance made after logarithmic transformation of the original
data, indicated that, there was no significantly difference, between means of
the number of healthy and or attacked blind bolls, in different treatments (Table
1). This conclusion was also true for the healthy or attacked blossomed
bolls. There was not also any significantly difference, comparing weight of
fibers in different treatments. Use of DMRT to compare mean number of healthy
blind bolls, in different treatments, showed no significantly difference, between
them, although, there is a significantly difference between these plots and
control treatment. Comparison of mean number of attacked blind bolls, indicates
that, there is a significantly difference between means of them, at 5 and 1%
levels of significance. There is a significantly difference between mean numbers
of damaged blind bolls, in plots sprayed with 200 ppm, compared to those in
plots sprayed with 4000 or 10000 ppm Spinosad (Table 2), but
there is not a significantly difference between mean numbers of damaged bolls,
in plots sprayed with 400 and or 10000 ppm Spinosad. Between blossomed healthy
bolls, the maximum number of such bolls belonged to plots sprayed with 10000
ppm Spinosad. In addition, there is a significantly difference, when mean number
of blossomed damaged bolls were compared, attacked bolls picked from plots which
were sprayed with 10000 ppm Spinosad, their mean number, had a significantly
difference from those sprayed either with Neem-Azal, or Bt and also, with those
in control, without spray of any insecticide, at level of 5%. Weight of blossomed
healthy bolls, was compared with weight of blossomed damaged bolls, in Fig.
of variance of characters
|*: significantly difference, at level of 5%. ns: Non significantly
difference, SV: Source of variation DF: Degree of freedom, w1: Weight of
blind healthy bolls, w2: Weight of blind damaged bolls, w3: Weight of blossomed
healthy bolls, w4: Weight of blossomed damaged bolls, fw: Weight of fibers,
n1: Number of blind healthy bolls, n2: Number of blind damaged bolls, n3:
Number of blossomed healthy bolls, n4: Number of blossomed damaged bolls
between means of different factors
|Those items with identical alphabetic letters have no significantly
difference, between them, at level of significance 5%
||Comparison between weight of cotton bolls, w3 = Weight of
blossomed healthy bolls, w4 = Weight of blossomed damaged bolls. Graph was
plotted, by the use of SPSS16 (Norusis, 2008) and
data in Table 2
It seems that little by little, the industrialized countries adapt new procedures
and strategies for control of agricultural pests. The global warming, besides
the environmental pollution, forced these countries to ban the use of old synthetic
pesticides and to choose other methods of control, which cause less harm to
the nature and to encourage the production of environment friendly, pesticides.
Between them, we could mention pesticides, which are derivatives of bacteria,
fungi, extract of plants, etc., these pesticides decompose rapidly after use,
with little or no harmful impact for the environment. Insecticidal toxins from
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) can now be deployed either as sprays or as
transgenic plants. Some entomologists and environmentalists have argued that
the sprays are preferable to plants because they are less likely to cause resistance.
However, Bt. sprays are not generally competitive with chemical insecticides
and seem unlikely to displace them (Roush, 1994). Transgenic
plants are excellent replacement for chemical pesticides, today transgenic crops,
such as transgenic rice, soya, corn and cotton are cultivated in more than 80
million hectares, of lands throughout the world. And although, in the first
year of their use in 1998, anxieties existed between the users, concerning the
persistence of genes transferred into these plants, such as Bt. crystal genes,
but in 2005, after 8 years of continuous cultivation, resistance was not observed
in target insect pests (Bates et al., 2005) and
also, citing another example, in Arizona in a 10 years study successful control
of major cotton pest pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) was obtained
by using such plants (Carriere et al., 2003)
and recently in 13 US Southern locations, with cotton plantations, Siebert
et al. ( 2008) compared the damage caused by of Helicoverpa zea
(Boddie) in Phytogen 440W, a transgenic cotton, with non-treated, non-Bt cotton
(PSC355) and with management strategies in which supplemental insecticides targeting
heliothines were applied, they found that, Phytogen 440W containing Cry1Ac and
Cry1F provided consistent and much more better control of heliothines, than
other varieties of non-transgenic cotton.
Many other researchers observed resistance of target pests, between them, Stewart
et al. (2001) expressed use of transgenic cotton with two types of
crystal proteins of Bt. should be more effective against pests of cotton verus
varieties, containing only one type of such proteins and Akhurst
et al. (2003) stated, the Resistance Ratio (RR) peaksed approximately
300-fold at generation 21 of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) when
the pests were fed on Bt. cotton in laboratory conditions. Another non-chemical
alternative to control of spiny boll worm, was the use of late, or early sowing,
using certain local varieties of cotton seeds as a control method, one of such
practices was to counter attacks by Earias insulana in Harran plain (Unlu
and Yildiz, 2003) although, this practice was accompanied with some success,
but as a practice, is not applicable to be used worldwide, because every country
generally use its own local varieties of cotton seeds and many countries
now, use transgenic cotton seeds, as a more successful replacement for local
varieties. In Mexico, Tamez-Guerra et al. (2000)
used Bt. (Dipel) as powder mixed with corn bran and lignin mixed with corn bran,
or as encapsulated in gelatin, for control of Ostrinia nubilalis in corn
and found that, Dipel, as encapsulated form is more resistant to UV and has
a longer protection period and cause a mortality of 75% of larvae, but its
application as Dipel powder sprayed mixed with corn bran, caused only a mortality
of 51%. (Tamez-Guerra et al., 2000). In Iran,
as cultivation of transgenic plants, are banned by the government, so, we used
instead, formulation of wettable powder of Bt. to control cotton spiny boll
worm. We observed different percentages of damage, caused by attack of spiny
boll worm, in different plots of cotton, in which different concentrations of
Spinosad was used, these damages, were significantly less than, those treatments,
in which, Bt. was sprayed. So, we conclude, that, the use of Spinosad compared
to the use of Bt. in cotton, has a better protective effect. Although, Diazinon
was the insecticide of choice already used by us for control of Earias insulana.
In a integrated control together with release of green lacewings (Mirmoayedi
and Maniee, 2009) but as little by little, synthetic insecticides, are replaced
by bio-insecticides, so, we propose Spinosad, to be used, instead of Diazinon,
in any integrated control of spiny bollworm, together with the use of green
lacewings, or any other predators or parasites. But when we compared this study,
to our previous study, we understood that, we have had a better control of thse
pest in our last study (Mirmoayedi and Maniee, 2009),
than this one, because in that research work, we have used an integrated control
of spiny bollworm, in which we have used two different control measures, to
protect, cotton bolls, against spiny boll worms, primarily we controlled the
bolls against the worm, by spray of Diazinon and the second time, one month
later, the second control, was done by the release of the eggs and larvae of
green lacewing Chrysoperla lucasina. So, as Diazinon, was a primary protective
agent, to protect the bolls of cotton against the pest for a period of one month
and then, with an interval of one month, the release of lacewings, helped us
to protect them for the rest of their growth time, so the total control time
could cover the total growth time of cotton, but in this new experiment, although
Spinosad proved to be a more efficient bio-pesticide, between, three chemical
used, but as it has a shorter protective period, than, Diazinon and it was sprayed
only once and as a single application, so, we conclude, that in a purely, chemical
control of cotton boll worm, a second application of this bio-pesticide, should
be considered, to provide a better protection of cotton, toward the attacks
of spiny boll worms.
The authors thank Razi University, for financially supporting this project, under contract No. 87/24926.
1: Akhurst, A.J., W. James, L.J. Bird and C. Beard, 2003. Resistance to the Cry1Ac δ-Endo-toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis in the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Econ. Entomol., 96: 1290-1299.
Direct Link |
2: Bates, S.L., J.Z. Zhao, R.T. Roush and A.M. Shelton, 2005. Insect resistance management in GM crops: Past, present and future. Nat. Biotechnol., 23: 57-62.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
3: Carriere, Y., C. Ellers-Kirk, M. Sisterson, L. Antilla, M. Whitlow, T.J. Dennehy and B.E. Tabashnik, 2003. Long-term regional suppression of pink bollworm by Bacillus thuringiensis. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 100: 1519-1523.
4: Cleveland, C.B., M.A. Mayes and S.A. Cryer, 2001. An ecological risk assessment for Spinosad use on cotton. Pest Manage. Sci., 58: 70-84.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
5: Esmaili, M., A. Mirkarimi and P. Azemayeshfard, 1995. Agricultural Entomology. 3rd Edn., Tehran University publications, Tehran, pp: 378-380
6: Gao, R., J. Dong, W. Zhang and W.L. Chen, 2007. Dietary risk assessment of Spinosad in China. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 49: 31-42.
7: Janmaat, A.F. and J. Myers, 2003. Rapid evolution and the cost of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis in greenhouse populations of cabbage loppers, Trichoplusia ni. Proc. R. Soc. Biol. Sci., 270: 2263-2270.
8: Johnstone, D.R., 2006. Pest control for cotton production. Present practice and trends for the future. Pest. Sci., 9: 483-492.
9: Mandour, N.S., 2009. Influence of Spinosad on immature and adult stages of Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). BioControl, 54: 93-102.
10: Mirmoayedi, A. and M. Maniee, 2009. Integrated pest management of cotton's spiny bollworm (Earias insulana) with spray of diazinon and relaese of green lacewings. J. Entomol., 6: 56-61.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
11: Mirmoayedi, A., 2009. Agricultural Entomology, Pests and their Control. 3rd Edn., Razi University Press, Iran, pp: 354-357
12: Norusis, M., 2008. The SPSS 16.0 Guide to Data Analysis. 2nd Edn., Prentice Hall, New York, ISBN-10: 0136061362, pp: 672
Direct Link |
13: Roush, R.T., 1994. Managing pests and their resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis: Can transgenic crops be better than sprays? Biocontrol Sci. Technol., 4: 501-516.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
14: Sayyed, A.H. and D.J. Wright, 2001. Fitness costs and stability of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis in a field population of the diamondback moth Plutella xylostella L. Ecol. Entomol., 26: 502-508.
Direct Link |
15: Siebert, M.W., S. Nolting, B.R. Leonard, L.B. Braxton and J.N. All et al., 2008. Efficacy of transgenic cotton expressing Cry1Ac and Cry1F insecticidal protein against heliothines (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Econ. Entomol., 101: 1950-1959.
PubMed | Direct Link |
16: Stewart, S.D., J.J. Adamczyk, K.S. Knighten and F.M. Davis, 2001. Impact of Bt cottons expressing one or two insecticidal proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis berliner on growth and survival of noctuid (Lepidoptera) larvae. J. Econ. Entomol., 94: 752-760.
17: Tamez-Guerra, P., M.R. McGuire, R.W. Behle, B.S. Shasha and L.J. Wong, 2000. Assessment of microencapsulated formulations for improved residual activity of Bacillus thuringiensis. J. Econ. Entomol., 93: 219-225.
PubMed | Direct Link |
18: Tillman, P.G. and J.E. Mulrooney, 2000. Effect of selected insecticides on the natural enemies Coleomegilla maculata and Hippodamia convergens (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Geocoris punctipes (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae) and Bracon mellitor, Cardiochiles nigriceps and Cotesia marginiventris (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in cotton. J. Econ. Entomol., 93: 1638-1643.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
19: Unlu, L. and S. Yildiz, 2003. The effect of different cultural practices on blind boll nfestation of spiny bollworm (Earias insulana Boisd.) (Lep., Noctuidae) and pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella Sound) (Lep. Gelechiidae) on cotton growth in Harran plain. J. Agric. Fac. Haran, Univ., 8: 25-29.
Direct Link |
20: Young, H.P., W.D. Bailey and R.M. Roe, 2003. Spinosad selection of a laboratory strain of the tobacco budworm, Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), and characterization of resistance. Crop Prot., 22: 265-273.