International Journal of Agricultural

Science and Research (IJASR)

ISSN(P): 2250-0057; ISSN(E): 2321-0087
Vol. 6, Issue 5, Oct 2016, 219-226
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd

EFFECT OF SOME INSECTICIDES AGAINST NATURAL ENEMIES ON

MUSTARD, BRASSICA JUNCEA IN FIELD CONDITION
R. I. CHAUDHARY, M. B. ZALA, R. K. THUMAR & M. U. DINDOR
Department of Entomology, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, India
ABSTRACT
Eight insecticides were tested for their toxicity on natural enemies viz., coccinellids, Coccinella septumpunctata
Linnaeus; Syrphid fly, Ischiodon scutellaris Fabricius and Diaeretiella rapae MacIntosh and honey bees under field
condition at Anand. The data recorded on natural enemies from treated plots revealed that no any harmful impact of any
of the insecticidal treatments. The plots treated with thiamethoxam 25 WG, 0.01%, imidacloprid 70 WG, 0.014%,
flonicamid 50 WP, 0.015% and dimethoate 30 EC, 0.03% showed higher natural enemies population as compared to rest
of the treatments. The activity of honey bees was slightly reduced in all the insecticidal treatments after spray.
The higher honey bees visits was recorded in the plots treated with dimethoate 30 EC, 0.03% (1.67) followed by
flonicamid 50 WG, 0.015% and found comparatively safer than rest of the insecticidal treatments.

Received: Sep 01, 2016; Accepted: Sep 21, 2016; Published: Sep 24, 2016; Paper Id.: IJASROCT201626

INTRODUCTION
India is the second largest rapeseed-mustard growing country in the world after China. It contributes

Original Article

KEYWORDS: Natural Enemies, Diaeretiella rapae, Coccinellids, Syrphid Fly, Honey Bee

about 23.7% acreage and 26% production of total oilseeds in India. With demand for oilseed running ahead of
supplies, the production trends have been unsatisfactory due to attack of various insect - pests. It is prone to attack
number of insect pests. More than three dozen of pests are known to be associated with various phonological
stages of mustard crop in India. Among these, aphid, L. erysimi is most important key pest in all the mustard
growing regions of the country (Bakhetia and Sekhon, 1989). Various entomophagous predators and parasitoids
live on aphid and play major role to manage pest naturally, Among these several natural enemies few are very
common viz., coccinellids, Coccinella septumpunctata Linnaeus; Syrphid fly, Ischiodon scutellaris Fabricius and
Diaeretiella rapae MacIntosh.
Seven spotted ladybird beetle, C. septempuctata (L.,) is one of the most potential predator of the mustard
aphid Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.) (Mathur, 1983). C. septempuctata controls mustard aphid population naturally and
plays an important role in dressing the aphid population in the field (Kalra, 1988). Syrphid flies or hower flies
(Diptera : Syrphidae) also have substantial influence on the aphid populations and other insect pests high rates of
reproduction and voracities allow the hower flies to exploit aphid colonies proficiently.
Each larvae eats about 400 aphids to complete its development (Dixon, 2000). Diaeretiella rapae
(Mc'Intosh) is a parasitoid with a substantial role in preventing the outbreak of aphids in mustard crops. This
parasitoid prefers to feeding on Brassicaceae such as L. erysimi rather than generalist species
(Blande et al., 2004). Honey bees (Apis spp.) play important role in pollination of large number of cultivated
www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

220

R. I. Chaudhary, M. B. Zala, R. K. Thumar & M. U. Dindor

crops. Pollination in different crops is the most useful activities done by honey bees. In mustard 43 per cent yield increase
due to foraging activity of honey bee.
Among various practices recommended for the management of aphid and other pests, use of chemical insecticides
is a common practice among farmers. Frequent uses of insecticides have negative effect on the survival and adaptation of
natural enemies (Hossain and Poehling, 2006) keeping in view the impact of insecticides on natural enemies and honeybee
in the mustard crop, the present study was conducted to evaluate seven different insecticides against the natural enemies
and honey bee under field condition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was laid out in a Randomized Block Design with eight treatment including control and three
replications having plot size of 3.6 4.5 m during Rabi, 2014-2015 at Agronomy Farm, B. A. College of Agriculture,
Anand Agricultural University, Anand. Mustard variety GM-4 was sown by keeping spacing of 45 x 15 cm. Recommended
agronomical practices except plant protesction measures were followed for raising the crop. First spray application of
respective insecticides was given on ETL level (1.5 aphid index /plant) and second spray 20 days after first spray by using
manually operated knapsack sprayer having duromist nozzle with slight runoff stage. During the spray, all necessary
precautions were taken to avoid the chances of drifting of spray fluid to other plots. Observations on aphid population were
recorded one day prior to chemical treatment.
Observations on natural enemies i.e., coccinellids (grubs and adults) and syrphid fly (larvae) were recorded from
randomly selected five plants. The population of D. rapae was recorded by observing number of live and mummified
(parasitized) aphids on 10 cm terminal twig of randomly selected five plants. To study the effect of different insecticides
on pollinators (Honey bees), the observations on number of visits made by naturally existing fauna of honey bees were
recorded during maximum visiting hours (10.00 to 12.00 a.m.). For the purpose, two plants were selected randomly in each
plot and numbers of honey bees visiting the plant during 2 minutes were counted. Such observations were recorded before
spray and 10 days of spray application. Data on various aspects were analyzed statistically by following standard procedure
(Steel and Torrie, 1980) and tabulated.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Impact of Various Insecticides on Population of Natural Enemies
Observations were recorded on natural enemies viz., coccinellids, Coccinella septumpunctata Linnaeus; Syrphid
fly, Ischiodon scutellaris Fabricius and Diaeretiella rapae MacIntosh from plots treated with different insecticides to
determine their effect on natural enemies.

Population of Coccinellids
The population of coccinellids recorded before sprays and 10 days after each spray and pooled over sprays during

Rabi, 2014-15 were presented in Table 1. The effect of insecticidal treatments on coccinellids was determined by recording
observations before spray and 10 days after each spray. The data on coccinellids population was before spray and 10 days
after first and second spray as well as in pooled over sprays are presented in Table 1.

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.8136

NAAS Rating: 3.53

Effect of Some Insecticides against Natural Enemies on

Mustard, Brassica Juncea in Field Condition

221

First Spray
After ten days of first spray, there was no significant difference in survival of coccinellids population due to any
of the insecticidal treatments (Table 1). However, the coccinellids population was slightly reduced in all the insecticidal
treatments after spray, coccinellids population was found higher in the treatment of imidacloprid 70 WG, 0.014% (1.19)
followed by thiamethoxam 25 WG, 0.01% (1.17) and dinotefuran 20 SG, 0.01% (1.17). These three treatments found
comparatively safer than rest of the insecticidal treatments.
Second Spray
More or less similar trend was also noticed after second spray as observed after first spray (Table 1).
Pooled Over Sprays
There was no significant difference in survival of coccinellids population due to any of the insecticidal treatments
after 10 days of spray application in pooled over (Table 1). However, the coccinellids population was slightly reduced in
all the insecticidal treatments after 10 days of sprays. Higher populations (1.19) was found in the treatment of imidacloprid
70 WG, 0.014% (1.19) followed by thiamethoxam 25 WG, 0.01% (0.87) and dinotefuran 20 SG, 0.01% (0.87). These three
treatments found comparatively less toxic than rest of the insecticidal treatments.

Population of Syrphid Fly

The data on population of syrphid fly before sprays and 10 days after each spray and pooled over sprays during

Rabi, 2014-15 are presented in Table 2. The impact of insecticidal treatments was determined on the basis of data of each
spray and pooled over sprays. The syrphid fly population was homogenous in all the treatments before spray, after first and
second sprays as well as in pooled over sprays as treatment differences were non-significant (Table 2).
First Spray
Ten days after first spray, there was no significant difference in survival of syrphid fly population of the
insecticidal treatments (Table 2). However, the syrphid fly population was slightly reduced in all the insecticidal treatments
after spray. Higher populations of syrphid fly was found in the treatments of thiamethoxam 25 WG, 0.01% and
imidacloprid 70 WG, 0.014% (0.88) followed by dimethoate 30 EC, 0.03%. These three treatments were found
comparatively less toxic than rest of the insecticidal treatments.
Second Spray
More or less similar trend was also noticed after second spray as observed after first spray (Table 2).
Pooled Over Sprays
There was no significant difference in survival of syrphid fly population of any of the insecticidal treatments after
10 days of spray application in pooled over sprays as the results are non- significant. The pooled over sprays indicated nonsignificant impact of tested insecticides against syrphid fly population (Table 2). However, the syrphid fly population was
slightly reduced in all the insecticidal treatments after 10 days of sprays. Thiamethoxam 25 WG, 0.01% and imidacloprid
70 WG, 0.014% recorded higher (0.88) population followed by and dimethoate 30 EC, 0.03%. These three treatments
found comparatively safer than rest of the insecticidal treatments.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

222

R. I. Chaudhary, M. B. Zala, R. K. Thumar & M. U. Dindor

Parasitism of Aphid Due to D. rapae

The per cent parasitism of aphid due to D. rapae recorded before sprays and 10 days after each spray and pooled

over sprays during Rabi, 2014-15 were presented in Table 3. The effect of insecticidal treatments on D. rapae has been
mentioned based on each spray and pooled over sprays. The per cent parasitism of aphid due to D. rapae was homogenous
in all the treatments before spray, in first and second spray as well as in pooled over sprays as treatment differences were
non-significant (Table 3).
First Spray
After ten days of first spray, there was no significant difference on the per cent parasitism of aphid due to D.
rapae due to any of the insecticidal treatments as the results are non- significant. However, the per cent parasitism of aphid
due to D. rapae was slightly reduced in all the insecticidal treatments after spray. Among the insecticidal treatments,
thiamethoxam 25 WG, 0.01% found the safer and recorded the highest parasitism (24.30%) due to D. rapae on aphid as it
was at par with control (un-treated). It was also at par with imidacloprid 70 WG, 0.014%, dimethoate 30 EC, 0.03% and
flonicamid 50 WG, 0.015% thus, these treatments were also comparatively safer than rest of the insecticidal treatments.
Second Spray
After ten days of second spray, there was the per cent parasitism of aphid due to D. rapae is not affected by any of
the insecticidal treatments as the results (Table 3) are non- significant. However, the per cent parasitism of aphid due to D.
rapae was slightly reduced in all the insecticidal treatments after spray. Thiamethoxam 25 WG, 0.01% found the safer and
recorded the highest parasitism (26.85%) due to D. rapae on aphid among all the insecticidal treatments. However, it was
par with imidacloprid 70 WG, 0.014, flonicamid 50 WG, 0.015% and Dinotefuran 20 SG, 0.01% thus, these treatments
were also comparatively safer than rest of the insecticidal treatments.
Pooled Over Sprays
There was the per cent parasitism of aphid due to D. rapae is not affected by any of the insecticidal treatments
after 10 days of spray application in pooled over sprays as the results are non- significant (Table 3). However, the per cent
parasitism of aphid due to D. rapae was slightly reduced in all the insecticidal treatments after 10 days of sprays. Among
the insecticidal treatments, thiamethoxam 25 WG, 0.01% found safer and recorded the highest parasitism (25.51%). It was
at par with imidacloprid 70 WG, 0.014%, flonicamid 50 WG, 0.015% and dimethoate 30 EC, 0.03% and these treatments
were also comparatively safer than rest of the insecticidal treatments.

Activity of Honey Bee

The activity of honey bee was recorded before sprays and 10 days after each spray during Rabi, 2014-15 and data

are presented in Table 4. The impact of insecticidal treatments was determined by recording the visits of honey bee from
10 to 12 hours in each treatment after spray. The activity of honey bee was homogenous in all the treatments before spray
and 10 days after first and second spray as well as in pooled over sprays as treatment differences were non-significant
(Table 4).
First Spray
The effect of insecticides after ten days of first spray was non significant. The data (Table 4) revealed that
insecticidal application had no any significant effect on activity of honey bees. However, the activities of honey bees were
Impact Factor (JCC): 4.8136

NAAS Rating: 3.53

Effect of Some Insecticides against Natural Enemies on

Mustard, Brassica Juncea in Field Condition

223

slightly reduced in all the insecticidal treatments after spray. The data presented in Table 4 on the activity of honey bees
revealed that higher honey bees visits were recorded in the plots treated with dimethoate 30 EC, 0.03% (1.67) followed by
flonicamid 50 WG, 0.015% showing safer than rest of the insecticidal treatments.
Second Spray
More or less similar trend was also noticed after second spray as observed after first spray (Table 4).
Pooled Over Sprays
The trend of pooled over sprays data on effect of insecticides on visits of honeybees are same as observed in first
and second sprays. The data indicated that, among the evaluated insecticides, higher honey bees visits was recorded in the
plots treated with dimethoate 30 EC, 0.03% (0.86) followed by flonicamid 50 WG, 0.015% and found comparatively safer
than rest of the insecticidal treatments 10 days after spray.

CONCLUSIONS
In nutshell, all the insecticidal treatments did not impose any significant adverse effect on the activity of
coccinellids, syrphid fly, D. rapae and honey bees. Among all the insecticides tested, thiamethoxam 25 WG, 0.01%
recorded higher activity and proved comparatively safer to natural enemies and honey bees. Sabry et al. (2014) clearly
mentioned that thiamethoxam was less toxic to the natural enemies. Ahmed et al. (2014) opined that neonicotinoids were
suitable for inclusion in Integrated Pest Management of sucking insect pests because they were comparatively less toxic to
predators as compared to non-selective insecticides. Prabhaker et al. (2011) reported that thiamethoxam 25 WG, 0.01%
was safe to the natural enemies. Thiamethoxam 25 WG, 0.01% is safe for the lady bird beetle, more care should be taken
when it is used in IPM programmes (Rahmani et al., 2013). Amin et al. (2014) reported that dimethoate 30 EC, 0.03% and
imidacloprid 70 WG, 0.014% were safe insecticides to coccinellids and syrphid fly. Dimethoate 30 EC, 0.03% was found
safer to coccinellids, syrphid fly, D. rapae and honey bee in mustard (Meena et al., 2013). Khedkar et al. (2012) reported
that flonicamid 50 WG @ 0.015% was safe to honey bee in mustard crop. Thus, present finding tallies with the earlier
reports.
Table 1: Effect of Different Insecticides on Activity of Lady Bird Beetle in Mustard
Treatments
1
Imidacloprid 70 WG, 0.014%
Thiamethoxam 25 WG, 0.01%
Clothianidin 50 WDG, 0.02%
Thiaclorprid 48 SC, 0.024%
Flonicamid 50 WG, 0.015%
Dinotefuran 20 SG, 0.01%
Dimethoate 30 EC, 0.03%
Control (water spray)
www.tjprc.org

Before
Spray
2
1.22
(0.99)
1.24
(1.04)
1.22
(0.99)
1.20
(0.94)
1.18
(0.89)
1.20
(0.94)
1.24
(1.04)
1.28
(1.14)

No. of LBB Grub and Adult / Plant

1st Spray
2nd Spray
Pooled
3
4
5
1.19
1.19
1.19
(0.92)
(0.92)
(0.92)
1.17
1.17
1.17
(0.87)
(0.87)
(0.87)
1.11
1.13
1.13
(0.73)
(0.78)
(0.78)
1.12
1.13
1.13
(0.75)
(0.78)
(0.78)
1.12
1.11
1.11
(0.75)
(0.73)
(0.73)
1.17
1.17
1.17
(0.87)
(0.87)
(0.87)
1.14
1.13
1.13
(0.80)
(0.78)
(0.78)
1.29
1.27
1.28
(1.16)
(1.11)
(1.14)
editor@tjprc.org

224

R. I. Chaudhary, M. B. Zala, R. K. Thumar & M. U. Dindor

S. Em.
Treatment (T)
0.05
Period (P)
TP
C. D. at 5%
T
NS
P
TP
C. V. %
7.78
Notes: Figures in parentheses are retransformed values; those outside are

0.05
NS
11.78

0.04
NS
10.95
transformed values

0.03
0.02
0.04
NS
0.05
NS
6.35

X 0 .5

Table 2: Effect of Different Insecticides on Activity of Syrphid Fly in Mustard

Before
Spray

Treatments
1
Imidacloprid 70 WG, 0.014%
Thiamethoxam 25 WG, 0.01%
Clothianidin 50 WDG, 0.02%
Thiaclorprid 48 SC, 0.024%
Flonicamid 50 WG, 0.015%
Dinotefuran 20 SG, 0.01%
Dimethoate 30 EC, 0.03%
Control (water spray)
S. Em.
Period (P)
TP
C. D. at 5%
P
TP
C. V. %

Treatment (T)
T

2
0.90
0.94
0.92
0.96
0.81
0.87
0.85
0.82
0.05
NS
9.65

No. of Syrphid Fly Larvae/ Plant

1st Spray
2nd Spray
Pooled
3
4
5
0.84
0.83
0.84
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.72
0.73
0.73
0.76
0.74
0.75
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.68
0.69
0.69
0.80
0.78
0.79
0.92
0.87
0.90
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.05
NS
NS
NS
0.05
NS
10.90
9.26
10.12

Table 3: Effect of Different Insecticides on Activity of D. rapae in Mustard

Treatments
1
Imidacloprid 70 WG, 0.014%
Thiamethoxam 25 WG, 0.01%
Clothianidin 50 WDG, 0.02%
Thiaclorprid 48 SC, 0.024%
Flonicamid 50 WG, 0.015%
Dinotefuran 20 SG, 0.01%
Dimethoate 30 EC, 0.03%
Control (water spray)
S.Em. Treatment (T)
Period (P)
TP
C.D.at5%
P
TP
C. V. %
Impact Factor (JCC): 4.8136

Before
Spray
2
5.04
(24.90)
5.41
(28.77)
4.94
(23.90)
4.96
(24.10)
4.92
(23.71)
4.72
(21.78)
5.24
(26.96)
5.56
(30.41)
0.28
NS
9.42

1st Spray
3
4.62
(20.84)
4.98
(24.30)
4.26
(17.65)
4.25
(17.56)
4.48
(19.57)
4.35
(18.42)
4.89
(23.41)
5.28
(27.38)
0.32
NS
11.78

Parasitism (%)
2nd Spray
4
4.79
(22.44)
5.23
(26.85)
4.35
(18.42)
4.32
(18.16)
4.71
(21.68)
4.50
(19.75)
4.05
(15.90)
5.56
(30.41)
0.30
NS
10.95

Pooled
5
4.70
(21.59)
5.10
(25.51)
4.30
(17.99)
4.28
(17.82)
4.59
(20.57)
4.42
(19.04)
4.47
(19.48)
5.42
(28.88)
0.20
0.11
0.31
NS
0.31
NS
11.36
NAAS Rating: 3.53

Effect of Some Insecticides against Natural Enemies on

Mustard, Brassica Juncea in Field Condition

225

Notes: Figures in parentheses are retransformed values; those outside are

X 0 .5

transformed values.

Table 4: Effect of Different Insecticides on Activity of Honey Bee in Mustard

Treatments

Before Spray

1
Imidacloprid 70 WG, 0.014%
Thiamethoxam 25 WG, 0.01%
Clothianidin 50 WDG, 0.02%
Thiaclorprid 48 SC, 0.024%
Flonicamid 50 WG, 0.015%
Dinotefuran 20 SG, 0.01%
Dimethoate 30 EC, 0.03%
Control (water spray)
S.Em.
Treatment (T)
Period (P)
TP
C.D.at 5%
T
P
TP
C. V. %

2
1.35
1.57
1.63
1.65
1.54
1.57
1.55
1.63
0.12
NS
12.96

No. of Bees Visit/ Plant/ 2 Min.

1st Spray
2nd Spray
Pooled
3
4
5
1.45
0.76
1.10
1.67
0.86
1.27
1.40
0.60
1.00
1.45
0.70
1.07
1.64
0.75
1.98
1.37
0.71
1.04
1.64
0.80
1.22
1.70
0.93
1.31
0.11
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.09
NS
NS
NS
0.09
NS
12.70
13.95
13.67

REFERENCES
1.

Ahmed, S.; Nisar, M. S.; Shakir, M. M.; Imran, M. and Iqbal, K. (2014). Comparative efficacy of some neonicotinoids and
traditional insecticides on sucking insect pests and their natural enemies on Bt-121 cotton crop. J. Animal Pl. Sci., 24 (2):
660-663.

2.

Amin, M. A.; Hameed, A.; Rizwan, M and Akmal, M. (2014). Effect of different insecticides against insect pests and predators
complex on Brassica napus L. under field conditions. Intl. J. Sci. Res. Environ. Sci., 2 (9): 340-345.

3.

Bakhetia, D. R. C. and Sekhon, B. S. (1989). Insect pests and their management rapeseed mustard. J. Oilseeds Res., 6(2):
269-273.

4.

Blande, J. D., Pickett, J. A. and Popp, G. M. 2004. Attack rate and success of the parasitoid D. rapae on specialist and
generalist feeding aphid. General of chemical ecology, 30: 1781-1795.

5.

Dixon, A. F. G. (2000). Insect predator-prey dynamics. In: Ladybird beetles and biological control, Cambridge university
press, United Kingdom.

6.

Hossain, M. B. and Poehling, H. M. (2006). Effect of a neem based insecticide on different immature life stages of the leaf
miner, Leriomyza sativae on tomato. Phytoparasitica, 34: 360-369.

7.

Kalra, V. K. (1988). Population dynamics of various predators associated with mustard aphid, L.erysimi (Kalt.,). J. Bio. Cont.,
2: 77-79.

8.

Khedkar, A. A.; Bharpoda, T. M.; Patel, M. G. and Patel, C. K. (2012). Efficacy of different chemical insecticides against
aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.) infesting mustard. Agres, Intl. J., 1 (1): 53-64.

9.

Mathur, K. C. (1983). Aphid of agricultural importance and their natural enemies of Jullunder Punjab. In: The aphid, Edit.
Behura BK, The zoological society of Orissa, Utkal University, Bhubneswar, India. pp 229-233.

10. Meena, H.; Singh, S. P. and Nagar, R. C. (2013). Evaluation of microbial agents and bio-products for the management of
mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.). The Bioscan, 8 (3): 744-750.
www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

226

R. I. Chaudhary, M. B. Zala, R. K. Thumar & M. U. Dindor

11. Prabhaker, N.; Castle, S. J.; Naranjo, S. E.; Toscano, N. C. and Morse, J. G. (2011). Compatibility of two systemic
neonicotinoids, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam, with various natural enemies of agricultural pests. J. Econ. Ent., 104 (3):
773-781.
12. Rahmani, S.; Bandani, A. R. and Sabahi, Q. (2013). Effects of thiamethoxam in sublethal concentrations, on life expectancy
(ex) and some other biological characteristics of Hippodamia variegata (Goeze) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Intl. Res. J. App.
Bas. Sci., 4 (3): 556-560.
13. Sabry, A. H.; Hassan, K. A. and Rehman, A. E. (2014). Relative toxicity of some modern insecticides against the pink
bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (saunders) and their residues effects on some natural enemies. Intl. J. Sci. Environ.
Tech., 3 (2): 481-491.
14. Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. (1980). Principles and procedures of statistics. Publ. by Mc Graw-Hill Book Company, New
York.

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.8136

NAAS Rating: 3.53