WARNING: unbalanced footnote start tag short code found.
If this warning is irrelevant, please disable the syntax validation feature in the dashboard under General settings > Footnote start and end short codes > Check for balanced shortcodes.
Unbalanced start tag short code found before:
“DF2,6; P=0.702). Figure 5.5 represent comparison of efficacy of λ-cyhalothrin on wheat pests and predator. Organisms treated with LC1 and LC2 shows significantly different mortality values (DF2,6; P=0.000 & DF2,6; P=0.001) while there was no difference in mortality in dofferen pests and predat…”
ABSTRACT
The studies of interaction between natural, plant based toxins and pest control management have been done for many years. Different plants have been used against pests due to their pest killing properties in crop fields to increase crop productivity. This study was designed out to check the insecticidal activity of three different plants (Peganum harmala, Androgrophis paniculata, Calotropis procera) as compared to synthetic pesticides. These plants were collected and air dried for grinding. Ground material packed into filter paper for extraction. With the help of Soxhelt apparatus extraction was carried out. By using rotary evaporator solvent was evaporated and saved for further use. Three different dilutions of plant extract (50%, 20%) were prepared in the distilled water and applied to the pests (Pectinophora gossypiella and Diuraphis noxia.) and predator (Lycosa terrestris) of wheat crop. This experiment was repeated thrice. The LC50 of A. paniculata against P. gossypiella was 20.47g/L, against D. noxia was 20.57g/L and against L. terrestris was 30.15g/L.The LC50 of P. harmala against P. gossypiella was16.59, against D.noxia was 18.89 and against L. terrestris was 21.67. The result in the form of LC50 also shows the LD50 of C. procera against P. gossypiella was19.67, against D.noxia was 21.43 and against L. terrestris was 23.67. Comparison of mortality in 24 hours showed that P. gossypiella was most succeptable to different plant extracts and among different plants, ethanolic extracts of P. harmala were most toxic to the wheat pests and predator. Toxicity of stock solutions of different plant extracts was comparable to recommended field dose of lamda cyhalothrin, a commercially available pyrethroid synthetic insecticide. Hence, results of the study suggest that studied plants can be potential natural alternative of synthetic insecticide but further characterization of chemical compounds and mode of action of toxic substances in extracts is suggested.
INTRODUCTION
Wheat is the most important food crop of the world and it is also the main food source in Pakistan. It is cultivated in Rabi season and occupies large agricultural area of Pakistan. The evidence of its importance is that it comprises of 60% part of human diet in Pakistan and have main source of food energy. Increase in wheat crop production is essential for food safety (Kumar et al., 2010, Masood, 2013, Dempewolf et al., 2014). Carbohydrates, proteins and vitamins are the most essential part of the human food as it is found in wheat.
So, wheat is one of the most important parts of the food. Pakistan includes in top ten wheat producing countries. According to Pakistan economy survey 2017-2018 the country population of Pakistan is increasing 2.4% per anum. This increase in population of Pakistan results in increased basic needs and food. It also increases in the demands of agricultural products. As wheat constitute essential part of the agricultural products and food so it is compulsory to increase in yield of wheat crop.
Productivity of crops grown for human consumption is at risk due to the incidence of pests, especially weeds, pathogens and animal pests. Crop losses due to these harmful organisms can be considerable and may be prohibited, or reduced, by crop protection procedures. An overview is given on different types of crop losses as well as on various methods of pest control developed during the last century (Oerke, 2006).
In different farming systems crop production has been defenseless due to different risks. These risks are floods, heavy rains, industrial development, and pest invasions (Pareek et al., 2017). Pests damage the crop growth at different stages of their life cycle. These damages are tissue boring, sap sucking, defoliation and leaf folding etc. (Sharma et al., 2004; Parasappa et al., 2017). Aphids are the common and most serious pest of wheat (Pathak & Amp; Khan 1994). To introduce the control measures for pests it is needed to maintain insect pests and their natural enemies and also their interaction with environment.
During this modern age the use of synthetic pesticides is common to control pest populations and related diseases. But the use of these pesticides in the field is harmful for natural enemies or beneficial insects at the same time (Ndakidemi et al., 2016). To avoid the harmful impact of insecticides it is compulsory to analyze the toxic effects of insecticides between pests and natural enemies (Takahashi & Kiritani, 1973).
The pest control by natural enemies of that pests is the effectively using the living organisms. Previous research shows that nearly all pests have natural enemies and many of the pests are controlled by their natural enemies (Susan et al., 2001; Fahad et al., 2015). Kim (1992) and Fahad et al., (2015) concluded that the predators appear in wheat field by the end of December and start of January after transfer of wheat. The common predators of wheat crop are lady bird beetle, lacewings, Green lacewing fly, and common pests are aphids, armyworm.
Study of natural enemies in agricultural areas is important in controlling pest population (Malkeshi et al., 2008). Spiders are general predators which feed on wide variety of insects and show positive impact against pest population. In biological control spiders play crucial role and it depends upon the rate of spiders that are found on crop. High rate of spiders population highly reduce the pest population density, that’s why they are effective in controlling insect pests (Sherawat et al., 2014).
Chemical insecticides as well as natural enemies play crucial role in controlling insect pests. Some predators like spiders, dragonflies, damselflies, grasshoppers are best natural enemies of pests. These predators reduce the loss of crop and indicate the presence of pests on wheat crop. Natural enemies limit the pest population and this is known as natural control. Natural control is more beneficial as compared to insecticides because pests produce resistance against insecticides but not in case of natural enemies.
In current years the use of synthetic insecticides in crop protection programs around the world has resulted in turbulences of the environment, pest resurgences, pest resistance to pesticides and lethal effect to non-target organisms in the agro-ecosystems in addition to direct toxicity to users. Therefore, it has now become necessary to search for the alternative means of pest control, which can minimize the use of synthetic pesticides (Prakash et al. 2008).
To minimize the loss of crops due to pest population different insecticides are used to control the pest population. The use of insecticides is not best for all crops due to some reasons. The reasons are pest resistance against insecticides, negative impact on crop predators and increase in environmental pollution. To reduce the use of insecticides different botanicals are also used as pesticides (Prakash et al., 2008). Natural pesticides are used as substitute of synthetic pesticides. Botanical pesticides are beneficial for few reasons as they provide safety for workers, food protection, reduce pesticides resistance and improve quality products (Erdogan et al., 2012).
The environmental problems caused by overuse of pesticides have been the matter of concern for both scientists and public in recent years. It has been estimated that about 2.5 million tons of pesticides are used on crops each year and the worldwide damage caused by pesticides reaches $100 billion annually. The reasons for this are twofold: (1) the high toxicity and no biodegradable properties of pesticides and (2) the residues in soil, water resources and crops that affect public health. (Koul et al. 2008).
LITERATURE REVIEW
The demand of food sources have been increasing with increasing population of Pakistan. With increasing population the basic needs are increasing like food, water, shelter etc. In Pakistan the main food source is wheat (Triticum aestivum). It is most beneficial food crop that is cultivated in Rabi season and also known as king of cereals. It is cultivated in different agricultural areas of Pakistan. Wheat constitutes 2.6% of total Gross Domestic product (GDP) (Dempewolf et al., 2014).
The fact is that its yield is not sufficient for population of Pakistan. Wheat crop yield may be minimized by attack of pests in addition to other climatic factor. The destructive insects or animals that may cause damage to crops are known as pests. Due to attack of pests wheat yield minimize by original yield product. This loss is in the form of quality loss and reduces the product quantity (Dent, 2000).
According to research on loss of global crops, the loss due to pests in different crops varies from 50% in wheat to more than 80% in cotton products. To overcome the food shortage, wheat yield must be increased per unit area (Oerke, 2006; Ijaz et al., 2013). Low yield of wheat crop in country is related to different biotic and abiotic factors like traditional method of cultivation, lack of irrigation, pest attack and different diseases (Arshad et al., 2018).
Different chemicals pesticides are being used to control insect pests (Woodburn, 1990). Random uses of chemical pesticides increase the resistance in pests and also increase the harmful effect to human health, environment and natural enemies (Hansen, 1987; wage, 1993). Chemical pesticides are also expensive and harmful for humans and environment (Russell et al., 2009). To reduce the use of different fertilizers and pesticides many pest control strategies have been introduced (Glen et al., 1995; Emden & Peakall. 1996; Waterlow et al., 1998; Brooks & Roberts 1999; Gurr et al., 2004; Ali et al., 2007).
Biological control is the minimization of pest population with the help of natural enemies and this is the best technique to minimize the pest population (Parker 1971; Greathead 1992; Liang 2012). Previous study shows that the major method in pest control management is the use of pesticide but due to repetitive use of this method resistance against insecticides may increases in pests (Georghiou, 1990; Kotchen, 1999; Thomas, 1999; Liang et al., 2012). The effective pest control by introducing natural enemies of that pest in field has been reported previously. Previous research shows that nearly all pests have natural enemies and many of pests controlled by these natural enemies (Susan et al., 2001; Fahad et al., 2015).
Biological control is important for the pest management (Way et al., 1994; Paa, 2004; Parasappa et al., 2017). As insects that may be pests as well as insects are natural enemies of pests. Natural enemies limited the pest population and this is known as natural control. Natural control is more beneficial as compared to insecticides because pests may produce resistance against variety of insecticides but not in case of natural enemies. The common predators of wheat crop is lady bird beetle, lacewings, Spiders, Green lacewing fly and common pests are aphids, armyworm. Study of natural enemies in agricultural areas is important in controlling pest population (Malkeshi et al., 2008).
In some cases pesticides effects on natural enemies and number of natural enemies could be diminished by the pesticide spray. This is the reason of increase in pest population (Debach, 1974; Barclay, 1982; Ruberson et al., 1998; Liang et al., 2013). Bio pesticides are pesticides that are obtained from natural products or living organisms like plants, microbes or animals (Kabaluk & Gazdik, 2005). Many Bio pesticides effects on the insect’s growth and development, reproduction and survival. The resistance against natural pesticides is not easy as compared to other chemical insecticides (Erdogan et al., 2012). Pests develop resistance against bio pesticides very slowly (http://bohatala.com/effect-of-inexpensive-plants-extracts-to-use-as-a-natural-insecticide-to-manage-different-insects/). The use of the plant extracts as natural insecticides is one the most effective method for pest management. It is natural and environment friendly method as compared to synthetic insecticides (Leatemia et.,al 2004).
Many local botanicals have repulsive and poisonous effects against pests. For example Neem, Garlic, Calotropis procera etc have toxic effects on many living organisms. The use of commonly found botanicals or natural products is beneficial as they are easily available and may be less costly. These products are used in the form of powder, oil and extracts (Padin et al., 2013). From previous research history it is clear that many valuable botanicals have great efficacy against insect pest population. Plant extracts were used for the prohibition of insect pest population. Some important points of biopesticides are as follows:
- It effects gradually.
- It decreases the pest populations instead of eliminating.
- Biopesticides are less harmful for humans as well as environment as compared to other chemical insecticides (Talha et al., 2019).
Some plants used as biopesticides for insect pest management due to their insect repellent and killing properties. Calotropis is one of them. It is used as insect killing natural product. It is commonly named as milkweed because it produced latex. Its milkweed contains poison (bohatala.com 2017). C. procera is wild perennial plant that is found globally. In 2010 Hanafi et.,al concluded that C.procera have ability to decrease the insect population. They worked on repulsive activity of C.procera and found that leaves of C.procera have insecticidal activity for some insects (Hanafi et.,al 2010). The plant of C.procera have different compounds like pentacyclic triterpenes , alkaloid ,cardinolids, phytosterols and triterpenoid saponins (Sony et al., 2016). Najat et al., 2012 reported presence of alkaloids, steroids and sticky ingredients while working on insecticidal activity of C. procera. Leaf extract of C. procera shows larvicidal effect against Musca domestica. He tested three components of C. procera (calatoxin, calatropin and calactin). According to his findings C. procera have great power to control M. domestica at their propagation dwellings (Najat et al., 2012)
Calotropis procera (Family: Asclepidaceae) is known to contain alkaloids, steroids and resinous substance.
Fresh leaf extract of milkweed juice showed larvicidal properties against Musca domestica larvae. The methanolic
extracted groups (clalactin, calotoxin and calotropin) were tested at the dose of 80 µg / larvae, topically to
instar.
- harmala has also insecticidal potential. In past few decades, the smoke of harmal was used as insect repellent in the houses. Many researchers have used it in extract form. Ethanolic extract of P. harmala is found effective for insecticidal activity. The major phytochemical component found in harmal is alkaloids have toxic effects on insects (Khan & Waseem 2001). Different compound were identified in P. harmala seeds i.e., Harmaline, Harmalol, tetrahydroharmine, asicine, alkaloids and asicinone. P. harmala also showed antibacterial, antimicrobial, antitumor activities (Matham et al., 2019).
- paniculata is widely used worldwide due to their medicinal properties. It is used for the treatment of common cold, fever, liver ailments, diabetes, hypertention, cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Chandran PR et al., 2017 indicated different components that were found in A. paniculata. These components were carbohydrates, alkaloids, flavonoids, phytosterols, fats, oils and terpenoids. Chandran work on Triticum castenum to check the insecticidal activity of A. paniculata. He concluded that aquous and ethanolic extracts of A. paniculata exhibit mortality in T. castenum which confirmed that it has insecticidal properties (Chandraan et al., 2017).
MATERIALS AND METHOD
Collection and Identification of Insects:
Pests and natural enemies of wheat were collected from different wheat fields of Tehsil Kot Chutta. It is located at 29°41’50N 70°28’20E and has an altitude of 112 meters (370 feet) from sea. For insect collection, randomized sampling technique was adapted (Samarpitha et al., 2016). Collection of insect pests and natural enemies of pests were collected in Rabi season (August 2018 to March 2019) at dawn and dusk by hand picking and jerking method. P. gossypiella, D. noxia were collected as they are common pests in wheat field and L. terrestris, the most common natural predators (L.terrestris) in wheat fields, was collected. Insects were identified by the Entomologist from the Department of Zoology, University of Education. Adult D. noxia and L. terrestris were collected for bioassay experiments wile third instar larvae of army worm were collected for experiments.
Collection and Identification of Plants:
Three different plants; Calotropis procera, Peganum harmala, and Andrographis paniculata were collected from Choti Bala , Dera Ghazi Khan. Its geographical coordinates are 29° 49′ 0″ North, 70° 15′ 0″ East. Plants were collected at their flowering stage and brought to the laboratory at University of Education, Dera Ghazi Khan Campus. Furthermore identity of these plants was confirmed by the plant Taxonomists from the department of Botany, University of Education.
Grinding of plants:
Fresh leaves of three plants were shade dried in the laboratory. When all material was well dried then put into electrical grinder for grinding into fine powdered (Yadav et al., 2011; Khani et al., 2011; Edorgan et al., 2012). After grinding powder was stored in air tight jars for further experiment at 17◦C.
Preparation of Plant Extracts:
Soxhelt apparatus was used for preparation of plant extract (Paramasivam et al., 2017, Matham et al., 2019). Soxhlet apparatus is an assemblage of three parts I.e., condenser, extractor and solvent reservoir. Ethanol was used as solvent for extraction. For extraction 20gm ground plant material was packed into cellulose thimble and loaded into the soxhlet extractor chamber that is connected to condenser.
Ethanol (250 ml ) was added into the round bottom flask, assembled with extractor and condenser and placed on heating mantle. This extraction procedure was continued for 24 hours until the thimble in extractor of soxhelt apparatus gradually becomes colorless. After extraction, extracts were evaporated on hot plate with magnetic stirrer at 30◦C. Solvent was evaporated until a thick semi solid product was obtained. After completion of evaporation extract was stored at -20◦C for further use (Yadav et al., 2011; Khani et al., 2011; Edorgan et al., 2012; Khan et al., 2017; bohatala.com 2017).
Preparation of stock solution:
In the laboratory stock solution (w/v) were prepared of all plant extract. For C. procera and P. harmala 50g of extract was dissolved in 1 liter of distilled water and for A. paniculata 45g of extract was dissolved in 1L distilled water. Further two more dilutions were prepared from each stock solution i.e. 50% and 20%. Distilled water was used as control and λ-cyhalothrin was used as standard for comparing the affectivity of plant extracts. Recommended field dose was prepared and used as stock solution of λ-cyhalothrin and two more dilutions were prepared i.e., 50% and 20%. Following Treatments were prepared:
| AP1 | A. Paniculata leaf extract stock solution (45g/L) |
| AP2 | A. Paniculata leaf extract 50% solution (22.5g/L) |
| AP3 | A. paniculata leaf extract 20% solution (9g/L) |
| PH1 | P. Harmala seed extract stock Solution (50g/L) |
| PH2 | P. Harmala seed extract 50% Solution (25g/L) |
| PH3 | P. Harmala seed extract 20% Solution (10g/L) |
| CP1 | C. procera leaf extract stock Solution (50g/L) |
| CP2 | C. procera leaf seed extract 50% Solution (25g/L) |
| CP3 | C. procera leaf seed extract 20% Solution (10g/L) |
| LC1 | λ-cyhalothrin field dose (2.5ml/L) |
| LC2 | λ-cyhalothrin 1/2 field dose (1.25ml/L) |
| LC3 | λ-cyhalothrin 1/5 field dose (0.5ml/L) |
| Control | Distilled water |
Laboratory Bioassay:
Residual bioassay was performed to check the effectiveness of commercial insecticides and extracts of selected plants (Takahashi & Kiritani, 1973; Paramasivam et al., 2017). For residual bioassay 20 insects were used for each treatment. Different doses of synthetic insecticides were prepared for analyzing the lethal concentration. Varying dilution of plant extracts were prepared and applied to the insects. Strips of Whatman Filter paper 1 (6x12cm: height x length) were impregnated with prepared treatments seperately and air dried. Clean glass jars (7cm: height) were lined with treated filter papers and insects was released into the jars for 1 hour. After 1 hour of exposure insects were shifted to the clean jars and mortality was observed for 24 hours in discrete intervals. Same procedure was used for each dilution and experiments were repeated thrice (Qahatani et al., 2012; Paramasivam et al., 2017).
Statistical Analysis:
SPSS 16 was used for calculation of the Mean percent mortalities in insects at discrete intervals. One way ANOVA was applied to compare percent mortalities against various treatments by using SPSS 16. For calculation of LC50 values of plant extracts, probit analysis was applied by using minitab 19.
RESULTS
Effect of different plant extracts on pest and predators of wheat:
Response of P. gossepiella against different concentration of A. paniculata was observed by residual bioassay. Results of bioassay are expressed in terms of mean percent mortality. It is evident from table 5.1 that maximum mortality after 24 hours of exposure was observed in group that is treated with stock solution of A. paniculata (80%) that is comparable to the toxicity of field dose of λ cyhalohrin (100%) which is commercially used for these insects in field. Further in the lower concentration mortality was reduced. In control group that is treated with distilled water very low mortality (18.3%) was observed.
Response of P. gossepiella against different concentration of P. harmala and C. procera is presented in table 5.2. and 5.3 respectively. It is evident that maximum mortality was observed in group that is treated with stock solution of P. harmala (98%) and C. procera (95%) that is comparable to the toxicity of field dose of λ- cyhalohrin. However, stock solution of P. harmala was most toxic to the P. gossypiella among all treatments except λ- cyhalothrin.
Response of D. noxia against different concentration of A. paniculata found effective. It is evident from table 5.4. that maximum mortality was observed in group that is treated with stock solution of A. paniculata (73%) that is compareable to the toxicity of field dose of λ- cyhalohrin (80%) which is commercially used for these insects in field. Further in the lower concentration mortality was reduced.
Response of D. noxia against different concentration of P. harmala and C. procera is represented in table 5.5. and 5.6. respectively. It shows that maximum mortality was observed in group that is treated with stock solution of P. harmala (85%) that is more than the to the toxicity of field dose of λ- cyhalohrin (80%) while mortality in insects treated with stock solution of C. procera was equal to mortality in insects treated with field dose of lambda cyhalothrin.
Response of L. terrestris against different concentration of A. paniculata was found effective. Table 5.7 depicts that maximum mortality in group that is treated with stock solution of A. paniculata (70%) and it was equal to mortality of group treated with λ- cyhalohrin (70%) as standard treatment. Percent Mortality was higher in insects treated with stich solutions of P. harmala (83.3%) and C. procera (100%) as competed to field dose of λ- cyhalohrin (Figure 5.7 &5.9). However, least mortality (20%) was observed in groups treated with distilled water only.
| Table 5.1. Percent mortality in P. gossypiella against different doses of A. Paniculata ethanolic extract at discrete time intervals | ||||||||||||
| Treatments | Percent Mortality (Mean ±Standard deviation) | |||||||||||
| 2 hrs | 4hrs | 6hrs | 8hrs | 10hrs | 12hrs | 14hrs | 16hrs | 18hrs | 20hrs | 22hrs | 24hrs | |
| Control | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.3±5.8 | 3.3±5.7 | 6.6±5.8 | 13.3±5.8 | 13.3±5.8 | 16.6±5.8 | 16.6±5.8 | 16.6±5.8 | 18.3±5.8 |
| LC1 | 10±10 | 23.3±5.8 | 26.7±5.8 | 40±10 | 50±10 | 70±10 | 90±10 | 96.7±5.8 | 100±10 | 100±10 | 100±10 | 100±10 |
| AP1 | 3.3±5.8 | 6.6±11.5 | 26.3±5.8 | 40±10 | 53.3±15.2 | 63.3±15.2 | 73.3±5.8 | 73.3±5.8 | 73.3±5.8 | 80±0 | 80±0 | 80±0 |
| AP2 | 0 | 0 | 6.6±5.8 | 13.3±5.8 | 20±0 | 23.3±5.8 | 30±0 | 36.6±5.8 | 43.3±5.8 | 50±0 | 50±0 | 56.6±5.8 |
| AP3 | 0 | 0 | 3.3±5.8 | 13.3±5.8 | 13.3±5.8 | 16.6±5.8 | 16.6±5.8 | 20±10 | 23.3±11.5 | 26.6±5.8 | 33.3±5.8 | 35±5.8 |
| Table 5.2. Percent mortality in P. gossypiella against different doses of P. harmala ethanolic extract at discrete time intervals | ||||||||||||
| Treatments | Percent Mortality (Mean ±Standard deviation) | |||||||||||
| 2 hrs | 4hrs | 6hrs | 8hrs | 10hrs | 12hrs | 14hrs | 16hrs | 18hrs | 20hrs | 22hrs | 24hrs | |
| Control | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.3±5.8 | 3.3±5.8 | 6.6±5.8 | 13.3±5.8 | 13.3±5.8 | 16.6±5.8 | 16.6±5.8 | 16.6±5.8 | 16.6±5.8 |
| LC1 | 10±10 | 23.3±5.8 | 26.7±5.8 | 40±10 | 50±10 | 70±10 | 90±10 | 96.7±5.8 | 100±10 | 100±10 | 100±10 | 100±10 |
| PH1 | 6.6±5.8 | 26.6±5.8 | 26.6±5.8 | 46.6±5.8 | 50±0 | 53.3±5.8 | 70±0 | 86.6±5.8 | 90±0 | 98.3±2.8 | 98.3±2.8 | 98.3±2.8 |
| PH2 | 0 | 0 | 3.3±5.7 | 10±0 | 16.6±5.7 | 30±0 | 43.3±5.7 | 46.3±5.7 | 60±0 | 60±0 | 65±5 | 66±5 |
| PH3 | 0 | 0 | 6.6±5.7 | 10±0 | 10±0 | 20±0 | 26.6±5.8 | 26.6±5.8 | 30±0 | 40±0 | 45±5 | 48.3±2.8 |
| Table 5.3. Percent mortality in P. gossypiella against different doses of CC. procera ethanolic extract at discrete time intervals | ||||||||||||
| Treatments | Percent Mortality (Mean ±Standard deviation) | |||||||||||
| 2 hrs | 4hrs | 6hrs | 8hrs | 10hrs | 12hrs | 14hrs | 16hrs | 18hrs | 20hrs | 22hrs | 24hrs | |
| Control | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.3±5.7 | 3.3±5.7 | 6.6±5.7 | 13.3±5.7 | 13.3±5.7 | 16.6±5.7 | 16.6±5.7 | 16.6±5.7 | 16.6±5.7 |
| LC1 | 10±10 | 23.3±5.8 | 26.7±5.8 | 40±10 | 50±10 | 70±10 | 90±10 | 96.7±5.8 | 100±10 | 100±10 | 100±10 | 100±10 |
| CP1 | 0 | 13.3±5.8 | 16.6±5.8 | 36.6±5.8 | 46.6±5.8 | 60±10 | 70±0 | 80±0 | 93.3±5.8 | 95±5 | 95±5 | 95±5 |
| CP2 | 0 | 0 | 13.3±5.8 | 20±0 | 20±0 | 26.6±5.8 | 30±10 | 40±0 | 56.6±5.8 | 56.6±5.8 | 56.6±5.8 | 58±7.6 |
| CP3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.7±5.8 | 10±0 | 16.7±5.8 | 20±0 | 20±0 | 20±0 | 28.3±2.8 | 28.3±2.8 | 30±5 |
| Table 5.4. Percent Mortality in D. noxia against different doses of A. penniculata ethanolic extract at discrete time intervals | ||||||||||||
| Treatments | Percent Mortality (Mean ±Standard deviation) | |||||||||||
| 2 hrs | 4hrs | 6hrs | 8hrs | 10hrs | 12hrs | 14hrs | 16hrs | 18hrs | 20hrs | 22hrs | 24hrs | |
| Control | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.6±5.8 | 10±0 | 10±0 | 13.3±5.8 | 20±0 | 23.3±5.8 | 23.3±5.8 | 26.6±5.8 |
| LC1 | 0 | 0 | 6.7±0 | 16.7±0 | 26.7±5.8 | 30±0 | 40±0 | 50±5.8 | 66.7±0 | 70±5.8 | 80±5.8 | 80±5.8 |
| AP1 | 0 | 0 | 3.3±5.8 | 10±0 | 20±10 | 20±10 | 30±0 | 30±0 | 43.3±5.8 | 50±0 | 60±0 | 73.3±7.6 |
| AP2 | 0 | 0 | 3.3±5.8 | 10±0 | 16.6±5.8 | 23.3±5.8 | 30±0 | 30±0 | 40±0 | 46.6±5.8 | 51.6±2.8 | 60±5 |
| AP3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.6±5.8 | 6.6±5.8 | 13.3±5.8 | 20±0 | 23.3±5.8 | 26.6±5.8 | 30±0 | 38.3±2.8 | 35±5 |
| Table 5.5. Percent mortality in D. noxia against different doses of P. harmala ethanolic extract at discrete intervals | ||||||||||||
| Treatments | Percent Mortality (Mean ±Standard deviation) | |||||||||||
| 2 hrs | 4hrs | 6hrs | 8hrs | 10hrs | 12hrs | 14hrs | 16hrs | 18hrs | 20hrs | 22hrs | 24hrs | |
| Control | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.7±5.8 | 10±0 | 10±0 | 13.3±5.8 | 20±0 | 23.3±5.8 | 23.3±5.8 | 26.6±5.8 |
| LC1 | 0 | 0 | 6.7±0 | 16.7±0 | 26.7±5.8 | 30±0 | 40±0 | 50±5.8 | 66.7±0 | 70±5.8 | 80±5.8 | 80±5.8 |
| PH1 | 3.3±5.8 | 3.3±5.8 | 10±0 | 16.6±5.8 | 26.6±5.8 | 33.3±5.8 | 46.6±5.8 | 50±0 | 66.7±5.8 | 66.7±5.8 | 80±0 | 85±5 |
| PH2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.7±5.8 | 16.7±5.8 | 20±0 | 23.3±5.8 | 30±0 | 40±0 | 50±0 | 53.3±5.8 | 60±5 |
| PH3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.3±5.8 | 10±0 | 13.3±5.8 | 20±0 | 23.3±5.8 | 23.3±5.8 | 30±0 | 38.3±2.8 | 38.3±2.8 |
| Table 5.6. Percent mortality in D. noxia against different doses of CC. procera ethanolic extract at discrete intervals | ||||||||||||
| Treatments | Percent Mortality (Mean ±Standard deviation) | |||||||||||
| 2 hrs | 4hrs | 6hrs | 8hrs | 10hrs | 12hrs | 14hrs | 16hrs | 18hrs | 20hrs | 22hrs | 24hrs | |
| Control | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.7±5.8 | 10±0 | 10±0 | 13.3±5.8 | 20±0 | 23.3±5.8 | 23.3±5.8 | 26.6±5.8 |
| LC1 | 0 | 0 | 6.7±0 | 16.7±0 | 26.7±5.8 | 30±0 | 40±0 | 50±5.8 | 66.7±0 | 70±5.8 | 80±5.8 | 80±5.8 |
| CP1 | 0 | 0 | 3.3±5.8 | 23.3±5.8 | 26.6±5.8 | 36.7±5.8 | 36.7±5.8 | 50±0 | 66.7±5.8 | 70±0 | 75±5 | 80±5 |
| CP2 | 0 | 0 | 6.6±5.8 | 10±0 | 16.6±5.8 | 20±0 | 40±0 | 40±0 | 56.6±5.8 | 56.6±5.8 | 60±0 | 65±5 |
| CP3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.3±5.8 | 13.3±5.8 | 13.3±5.8 | 20±0 | 20±0 | 23.3±5.8 | 26.6±5.8 | 26.6±5.8 | 26.6±5.8 |
| Table 5.7. Percent mortality in L. terrestris against different doses of A. penniculata ethanolic extract at discrete intervals | ||||||||||||
| Treatments | Percent Mortality (Mean ±Standard deviation) | |||||||||||
| 2 hrs | 4hrs | 6hrs | 8hrs | 10hrs | 12hrs | 14hrs | 16hrs | 18hrs | 20hrs | 22hrs | 24hrs | |
| Control | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.3±5.8 | 6.7±5.8 | 10±0 | 10±0 | 16.6±5.8 | 16.6±5.8 | 20±0 | 20±0 | 20±0 |
| LC1 | 10±0 | 20±0 | 26.7±5.8 | 36.7±5.8 | 40±10 | 46.7±5.8 | 50±0 | 60±0 | 60±0 | 63.3±5.8 | 66.7±5.8 | 70±0 |
| AP1 | 6.7±5.8 | 6.7±5.8 | 16.7±5.8 | 26.6±5.8 | 40±0 | 50±0 | 50±0 | 56.7±5.8 | 60±0 | 66.7±5.8 | 70±0 | 70±0 |
| AP2 | 0 | 6.7±5.8 | 13.3±5.8 | 16.7±5.8 | 23.3±5.8 | 30±0 | 30±0 | 36.6±5.8 | 40±0 | 40±0 | 40±0 | 40±0 |
| AP3 | 0 | 3.3±5.8 | 6.7±5.8 | 20±0 | 20±0 | 20±0 | 20±0 | 23.3±5.8 | 30±0 | 30±0 | 30±0 | 30±0 |
| Table 5.8. Percent mortality in L. terrestris against different doses of P. harmala ethanolic extract at discrete intervals | ||||||||||||
| Treatments | Percent Mortality (Mean ±Standard deviation) | |||||||||||
| 2 hrs | 4hrs | 6hrs | 8hrs | 10hrs | 12hrs | 14hrs | 16hrs | 18hrs | 20hrs | 22hrs | 24hrs | |
| Control | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.3±5.8 | 6.7±5.8 | 10±0 | 10±0 | 16.7±5.8 | 16.7±5.8 | 20±0 | 20±0 | 20±0 |
| LC1 | 10±0 | 20±0 | 26.7±5.8 | 36.7±5.8 | 40±10 | 46.7±5.8 | 50±0 | 60±0 | 60±0 | 63.3±5.8 | 66.7±5.8 | 70±0 |
| PH1 | 16.7±5.8 | 23.3±5.8 | 36.7±5.8 | 40±0 | 46.7±5.8 | 50±0 | 56.7±5.8 | 60±0 | 73.3±5.8 | 76.7±5.8 | 80±0 | 83.3±5.8 |
| PH2 | 0 | 6.7±5.8 | 13.3±5.8 | 16.7±5.8 | 20±0 | 26.7±5.8 | 30±0 | 36.7±5.8 | 40±0 | 50±0 | 50±0 | 50±0 |
| PH3 | 6.7±5.8 | 10±0 | 16.7±5.8 | 16.7±5.8 | 20±0 | 26.7±5.8 | 30±0 | 30±0 | 30±0 | 36.7±5.8 | 40±0 | 40±0 |
| Table 5.9. Percent mortality in L. terrestris against different doses of CC. procera ethanolic extract at discrete intervals | ||||||||||||
| Treatments | Percent Mortality (Mean ±Standard deviation) | |||||||||||
| 2 hrs | 4hrs | 6hrs | 8hrs | 10hrs | 12hrs | 14hrs | 16hrs | 18hrs | 20hrs | 22hrs | 24hrs | |
| Control | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.3±5.8 | 6.7±5.8 | 10±0 | 10±0 | 16.7±5.8 | 16.7±5.8 | 20±0 | 20±0 | 20±0 |
| LC1 | 10±0 | 20±0 | 26.7±5.8 | 36.7±5.8 | 40±10 | 46.7±5.8 | 50±0 | 60±0 | 60±0 | 63.3±5.8 | 66.7±5.8 | 70±0 |
| CP1 | 6.7±5.8 | 6.7±5.8 | 10±0 | 20±0 | 30±10 | 33.3±11.5 | 40±10 | 60±10 | 76.7±5.8 | 93.3±5.8 | 96.6±5.8 | 100±0 |
| CP2 | 0 | 3.3±5.8 | 10±0 | 13.3±5.8 | 20±0 | 20±0 | 30±0 | 30±0 | 36.7±5.8 | 43.3±5.8 | 46.7±5.8 | 46.7±5.8 |
| CP3 | 0 | 0 | 6.7±5.8 | 6.7±5.8 | 10±0 | 13.3±5.8 | 16.7±5.8 | 20±0 | 20±0 | 23.3±5.8 | 26.7±5.8 | 30±0 |
Lethal Concentration of Different Plant Extracts:
Figure 5.1 shows the LC50 of different plant extracts against insects. Lethal concentrations are expressed as concentrations of plant extract in grams dissolver per liter of distilled water. Results if study indicates that LC50 of A. paniculata for L. terrestris is highest (30.15g/L) as compared to P. gossepiella (20.47g/L) and D. noxia (20.97g/L) which indicates it is least toxic to L. terrestris. Likewise, the LC50 of P. harmala against L. terrestris (21.67g/L) is higher than rest of the insects . C. procera have higher LC50 value against L. terrestris (23.67g/L) then D. noxia (21.43g/L) and P. gossypiella (19.67g/L) respectively.
While comparing the overall toxicity of different plant extracts against pest and predators of wheat, it is evident from figure 5.1 that ethanolic extract of A. paniculata is least effective against L. terrestris and most toxic treatment was ethanolic extract of P. harmala seeds against P. gossypiella. Furthermore, P. harmala extract was most toxic against all insects as compared to extracts of other plants.
Comparison of Mortality in Wheat Pest and Predator:
Response of P. gossepiella against different doses of plant extracts in comparison to synthetic insecticides is represented in table 5.10. Results of bioassay are expressed in terms of mean percent mortality. There was a significant difference among groups treated with stock solution of different plant extracts (DF4,10; P=0.00) 50% of stock solution (DF4,10; P=0.00) and 20% of stock solution (DF4,10; P=0.00). It is evident from table 5.10 that maximum mortality after 24 hours of exposure was observed in P. gossepiella treated with PH1 (98.3±2.88) that is comparable to the toxicity of field dose of LC1 (98.3±2.88).The response against 50% stock solution of plant extracts shows that PH2 was most toxic (65±5) as compared to others. The 20% of stock solution of P. harmala (PH3) also shows the highest activity (48±2.88) as compared to others.
Response of D. noxia against different doses of plant extracts in comparison to synthetic insecticides is represented in table 5.11. There was a significant difference among groups treated with stock solution of different plant extracts (DF4,10; P=0.00) 50% of stock solution (DF4,10; P=0.00) and 20% of stock solution (DF4,10; P=0.032). It is evident from table 5.11 that maximum mortality after 24 hours of exposure was observed in D. noxia treated with PH1 (85±5) that is higher than to the toxicity of field dose of LC1 (78.3±2.88).The response against 50% stock solution of plant extracts shows that CP2 was most toxic (65±5) as compared to others. While mortality was same in AP2 and CP2 treated insects (60±5). The 20% of stock solution of P. harmala (PH3) also shows the highest activity (38±2.88) as compared to others that is equals to the mortality in LC3 treated groups (38±7.68).
Response of L. terrestris against different doses of plant extracts in comparison to synthetic insecticides is represented in table 5.12. There was a significant difference among groups treated with stock solution of different plant extracts (DF4,10; P=0.00) 50% of stock solution (DF4,10; P=0.00) and 20% of stock solution (DF4,10; P=0.003). It is evident from table 5.12 that maximum mortality after 24 hours of exposure was observed in L. terrestris treated with CP1 (98.3±2.88) that is higher than to the toxicity of field dose of LC1 (71.6±2.88).The response against 50% stock solution of plant extracts shows that PH2 was most toxic (50±5) as compared to others. While mortality was same in AP2 and LC2 treated insects (40±25). The 20% of stock solution of P. harmala (PH3) also shows the highest activity (38±2.88) Whlie mortality was same in AP3 and CP3 treated spiders (28.3±2.88).
Comparison of effect of one dose of A. Penniculata extract among different pests and predator is represented in Figure 5.2. Results of study shows that there is no significant difference in mortality values in pests and predators, treated with stock solution of A. Penniculata (AP1) and AP3. (DF2,6; P=0.105 & DF2,6; P=0.183). However, Different treatments of A. Penniculata were most toxic to P. gossypiella.
Comparison of effect of one dose of P. harmala extract among different pests and predator is represented in Figure 5.3. Results of study shows that there is a significant difference in mortality values in pests and predators, treated with PH1 (DF2,6; P=0.015), PH2 (DF2,6; P=0.027) and PH3 (DF2,6; P=0.035). However, Different treatments of A. Penniculata were most toxic to P. gossypiella.
Figure 5.4 represent comparison of efficacy of C. procera leaf extracts on wheat pests and predator. Organisms treated with CP1 and CP2 shows significantly different mortality values (DF2,6; P=0.005 & DF2,6; P=0.017) while there was no difference in mortality in dofferen pests and predators of wheat treated with CP3 ((DF2,6; P=0.702). Figure 5.5 represent comparison of efficacy of λ-cyhalothrin on wheat pests and predator. Organisms treated with LC1 and LC2 shows significantly different mortality values (DF2,6; P=0.000 & DF2,6; P=0.001) while there was no difference in mortality in dofferen pests and predators of wheat treated with LC3 ((DF2,6; P=0.304).
| Table 5. 10: Comparison of Mortality after 24 hours in P. gossypiella against different treatments of Plant extracts | ||||
| Dose | Treatments | Mean % mortality ± St.dev | Df | P-value |
| Stock Solutions | AP1 | 80±5 | 4,10 | .000 |
| PH1 | 98.3±2.88 | |||
| CP1 | 95±5 | |||
| LC1 | 98.3±2.88 | |||
| Control | 18.3±2.88 | |||
| 50 % Sloutions | AP2 | 58.3±7.6 | 4,10 | .000 |
| PH2 | 65±5 | |||
| CP2 | 58.3±7.6 | |||
| LC2 | 55±5 | |||
| Control | 18.3±2.88 | |||
| 20% Solutions | AP3 | 35±5 | 4,10 | .000 |
| PH3 | 48.3±2.88 | |||
| CP3 | 30±5 | |||
| LC3 | 35±5 | |||
| Control | 18.3±2.88 | |||
| Table 5. 11: Comparison of Mortality after 24 hours in D. noria against different treatments of Plant extracts | ||||
| Dose | Treatments | Mean % mortality ± St.dev | Df | P-value |
| Stock Solutions | AP1 | 73.3±7.63 | 4,10 | .000 |
| PH1 | 85±5 | |||
| CP1 | 80±5 | |||
| LC1 | 78.3±2.88 | |||
| Control | 25±5 | |||
| 50 % Sloutions | AP2 | 60±5 | 4,10 | .000 |
| PH2 | 60±5 | |||
| CP2 | 65±5 | |||
| LC2 | 61.6±2.88 | |||
| Control | 25±5 | |||
| 20% Solutions | AP3 | 35±5 | 4,10 | .032 |
| PH3 | 38.3±2.88 | |||
| CP3 | 26.6±5.77 | |||
| LC3 | 38.3±7.63 | |||
| Control | 25±5 | |||
|
Table 5.12: Comparison of Mortality after 24 hours in L. terrestris against different treatments of Plant extracts |
||||
| Dose | Treatments | Mean % mortality ± St.dev | Df | P-value |
| Stock Solutions | AP1 | 68.3±2.88 | 4,10 | .000 |
| PH1 | 85±5 | |||
| CP1 | 98.3±2.88 | |||
| LC1 | 71.6±2.88 | |||
| Control | 20±5 | |||
| 50 % Sloutions | AP2 | 38.3±2.88 | 4,10 | .000 |
| PH2 | 50±5 | |||
| CP2 | 45±5 | |||
| LC2 | 38.3±2.88 | |||
| Control | 20±5 | |||
| 20% Solutions | AP3 | 28.3±2.88 | 4,10 | .003 |
| PH3 | 40±5 | |||
| CP3 | 28.3±2.88 | |||
| LC3 | 30±5 | |||
| Control | 20±5 | |||
DISCUSSION
The use of plant based products for wheat pest management is best technology for developing countries. The plant based products are effective for pest control due to their effectiveness against different periods of insect infestation (Ukeh, 2008, Rajashekhar et al., 2014). Many studies concluded that different plant extracts contains abundant bioactive compounds that may be repellent, antifeedent or insecticidal activity against insect pests (Rajashekhar et al., 2014). Previous research results show the different effects of P. harmala. The aqueous extract of the seeds of P.harmala have antispasmodic, anticholinergic, antihistaminic and antiadrenergic activities (Milad et al., 2013). In Current study ethanolic extract of P. harmala was found effective against tested pest and predator of wheat.
Milad et al. (2013) also suggested in vitro management of fungi with discrete alkaloids of P. harmala or a combination of them was so effective against two fungi species, Aspergillus niger and Candida albicans. Some reports about insecticidal activity of P. harmala-derived beta-carbolines signifying their inhibitory properties on the growth and progression of the larval stages of some insects (Rajashekhar et al., 2014). For example harmaline prevented the development of larvae of Plodia interpunctella, an insect pest of stored food, to the pupal and adult stages. Another research work showed the insecticidal activity of methanolic extract of P. harmala against Tribolium castaneum, the stored grain pest. Larval growth was expressively inhibited with the combination of the extract into their diet. The adult form of the insect was also disposed. In this study insecticidal activity of three different plants extract as compared to synthetic insectides was evaluated. P. harmala is one of them. Different plant extracts were prepared and then applied to the insects to check the efficacy of plant extracts. P. harmala showed the maximum insecticidal activity against P. gossepiellas, D. noxia and L. terrestris.
In 2016 a study by Edward et al., reported bioactivity of A. paniculata. A. paniculata exhibit mortality against Aedes vector. LC50 of A. paniculata showed the percent mortality of Aedes vector at 12ppm of treatment. It also has toxic effect to kill or suppress the insect population. The leaf extract of Calotropis gigantea have insecticidal activity that may effective for the pest control management. C. procera was used in this study due to their insecticidal effect against pests. The result showed that C. procera has potentially effective for pest management (Habib et al., 2016).
By the residual bioassay toxicity of leaf extract of Lantana camara against adults of Sitophilus oryzae, Callosobruchus chinensis and T. castaneum was evaluates. Different doses (0.004, 0.02, 0.04, 0.08, 0.156 and 0.236 mg/cm2) of extracts in 1 ml of methanol for each treatment were applied. Insect mortality was observed after 24 hour of treatment. LC50 of ectract at different time period proved that T. casatneum show succeptibilty as compared to S. oryzae and C. chinensis adults. The result shows that 70-80% mortality of S. oryzae, T. castneum and C. chinensis at concentration of 500mg/L after 24 hour. While 90-100% mortality was observed at 500mg/L after 7 days of treatment. Ethanolic plant extracts of L. camara were beneficial for the controlling insect pests population at both larval and adult stages (Rajashekar et al. 2010, Rajashekhar et al., 2012).
A study reported that ethanolic extract of Xanthium strumarium and Tanacetum parthenium show highest mortality and control the Myzus persicae population. So that ethanolic extract of plants were used previously and now it is also clear from the research that ethanolic extract of plants were useful against pest population (Erdogan et al., 2016).
Anjum et al. (2016) conduct a research on insecticidal activity of C. procera. The insect larvae were exposed for 24, 48 and 72 hours with different doses of C. procera extract. The mortality showed that extract of C. procera is effective for insect pest management. Arya et al. (2016) concluded that stock solution of C. procera extract found to be effective against Aphids and show mortality upto 80% in 3rd instar nymphs and 77% against adult aphids. However it was not effective for predators of Aphids.
It was concluded from this research that botanicals are effective for pest management and their affectivity is comparable to synthetic insecticides. Botanicals show mortality against pests. So it can be used instead of synthetic insecticides that were harmful for crops as well as humans.
REFERENCES
- Ali, A. H., Herren, H., Zeyaur, R., Khan, Z. R., John, A., Pickett, Christine, M. & Wood, C. (2007) Integrated pest management the push–pull approach for controlling insect pests and weeds of cereals, and its potential for other agricultural systems including animal husbandry. International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, doi:10.1098/rstb.2173
- Arshad, M., Ahmad, S., Sufyan, M., Abidin, Z. & Maqsood, S. (2018). Population Dynamics of P. gossypiella and their natural enemies associated with strip-intercropping in wheat crop. Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 50:1225-1230.
- Arya, A. Sing, R.B. & Singh, K. (2016) Insecticidal activity of Calotropis leaves against mustard aphids Lipaphis erysimi (kalt) and its natural predator Coccinella septempunctata (Linn). Research journal of chemical and environmental sciences. Pp: 53-55
- Dempewolf, J., Adusei, B., Becker-Reshef, I., Hansen, M., Potapov, P., Khan, A. & Barker, B. (2014). Wheat Yield Forecasting for Punjab Province from Vegetation Index Time Series and Historic Crop Statistics. Remote Sensing, 6(10): 9653–9675.
- Edward, S.E. Srinivasan, V.P. Nathan, S.S. Thanigaivel, A. Ponsankar, A. Paradeepa, V. Rani, S.S. Kalaivani, K. Hunter, W.B. Mageed, A.A. Duraipandiyan, V. & Al-Dhabi, N.A( 2016). Anti-dengue efficacy of bioactive andrographolide from A. paniculata (Lamiales: Acanthaceae) against the primary dengue vector Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) Science direct.Volume: 163. Pp.167-178.
- Erdogan, P., Yildirim, A., & Sever, B. (2012). Investigations on the Effects of Five Different Plant Extracts on the Two-Spotted Mite Tetranychus urticae Koch (Arachnida:Tetranychidae). A Journal of Entomology, 12: 5.
- Habib, R.M. & Karim, R.M (2016). Chemical characterization and insecticidal activity of Calotropis gigantea L. flower extract against Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). Asian pacific Journal of tropical diseases. Volume:6 pp:996-999.
- Heong, K.L., Teng, P.S. & Moody, K. (1995). Managing rice pests with less chemicals Geo Journal 35: 337
- J.A Leatemia & M.B Isman. 2004. Insecticidal activity of crude seed extracts of Annona spp., Lansium domesticum and Sandoricum koetjape against lepidopteran larvae. Phytoparasitica 32(1):30-37.
- Jbilou R, Amri H, Bouayad N, Ghailani N, Ennabili A, Sayah F (2008). Insecticidal effects of extracts of seven plant species on larval development, alpha-amylase activity and offspring production of Tribolium castaneum. Bioresour Technol. 99:959–64
- Jianya, Su., Zhenzhen Z. M., Wu, O. (2014). Changes in Insecticide Resistance of the Rice Striped Stem Borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Journal of Economic Entomology 107: 333–341Khani, M., Rita, M. A., Omar, D., Rahmani, M., & Rezazadeh, S. (2011). Tropical medicinal plant extracts against rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae Journal of Medicinal Plants Research 5(2): 259-265.
- Khan, R., M.A. Khan, S. Shah, S. Uddin, S., Ali & M. Ilyas.
(2016). Bioherbicidal potential of plant extracts against weeds of wheat
crop under agro-climatic conditions of Peshawar-Pakistan Journal of Weed Science. 22(2): 285-294.M. Shahia, A.A. Hanafi-Bojdb, M. Iranshahic, H. Vatandoostb & M.Y. Hanafi-Bojdd (2010). Larvicidal efficacy of latex and extract of C. procera (Gentianales: Asclepiadaceae) against Culex quinquefasciatus and Anopheles stephensi (Diptera: Culicidae) J Vector Borne Dis 47, pp. 185–188 - Koul O, Walia S and Dhaliwal G 2008. Essential oils as green pesticides: potential and constraints. Biopestic Int. 4(1): 63-84.
- Kumar, S., Singh, A.K. (2010). A review on herbicide 2, 4-D damage reports in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Journal of chemical and pharmaceutical research 2(6):118-124.
- Matham, M.A. Haider, S.A. Firas, F.A & Bassam, S.A. (2019). Phytochemical and antibacterial activity of the P. harmala seeds and its alkaloids. Plant archives. Vol.19. pp.1439-1444.
- Milad, M. Peyman, M.Shahin, A. Asghari, M.H. & Shayegh, J. (2013). Pharmacological and therapeutic effects of Peganum harmala and its main alkaloids Pharmacognosy review. pp.199-212
- Najat, A.K & Faten, F. A (2012) Insecticidal activity of C. procera extracted groups on some biochemical aspects of house fly, Musca domestica vicina. Journal of American sciences. 8(7) pp. 687-693
- Oerke, E. C. (2006). Crop Losses to Pests Journal of Agricultural Science, 144: 31-43.
- Paa, O., Shephard, B. M. (2004). Predators and parasitoids of rice
insect pests. In Biology and Management of Rice Pests,
Ed. Heinrichs, EA, Wiley Eastern Limited. 779 - Padin, B.S., Fuse, S., Urrutia, I.M., Bello, M.G. (2013). Toxicity and repellency of nine medicinal plants against Tribolium castaneum in stored wheat. Bulletin of Insectology 66(1): 45-49.
- Paramasivam, M., & Selvi, C. (2017). Laboratory bioassay methods to assess the insecticide toxicity against insect pests-A review. Journal of Entomology and Zoology studies 5(3):1441-1445.
- Parasappa, H. H., Narasa, Reddy, G. & Neelakanth. (2017). Rice insect pests and their natural enemies complex in different rice ecosystem of Cauvery
command areas of Karnataka. Journal of Entomology & Zoological Studies, 5(5): 335-338. - Pareek, A., Sharma, U. S., Lekha, & Kalyan, R. (2017). Species richness diversity of acrididae in maize ecosystem in southern Rajasthan Journal of Entomology & Zoological Studies, 5(2): 746-749.
- Pathak, M. D., & Khan, Z. R. (1994). Insect’s pests of Rice International rice research Institute.ISBN 971-22-0028-0.
- Peter, A. C. O., (2015) Common insect pests of rice and their natural biological control Utar Agriculture Science Journal 1(2).
- Prakash, A., Rao, J. & Nandagopal, V. (2008). Future of Botanical Pesticides in rice, wheat, pulses and vegetables pest management, Journal of Biopesticides, 1(2):154 – 169.
- Pratap C.R, Reshmi S. A. K, Arya B, Krishna P. S, Surya G. V. R, Nino,J.( 2017) Analysis of Phytochemical Constituents, Anthelmintic and Insecticidal Properties of Leaf Extracts of A. paniculata. The Pharmaceutical and Chemical Journal, 4(5):98-106
- Rajashekar Y, Shivanandappa T (2010) A novel natural insecticide molecule for grain protection. Julius-Kühn-Archiv 425:913–917
- Rajashekar Y, Shivanandappa T (2010) A novel natural insecticide molecule for grain protection. Julius-Kühn-Archiv 425:913–917.
- Rajashekar. Y, Ravindra, K.V.& Bakthavatsalam.N (2012). Leaves of Lantana camara Linn. (Verbenaceae) as a potential insecticide for the management of three species of stored grain insect pests. Journal of food and science technology. 51(11) pp: 3494–3499.
- RNS Yadav & Munin Agarwala. 2011. Phytochemical analysis of some medicinal plants. Journal of Phytology 3(12): 10-14.
- Said, S.M.K & Waseem, M., (2001). Repellency of red pumpkin beetle against some plant extracts. Journal of Biological Sciences 1(4): 198-200.
- Sharma, M. K., Pandey, V., Singh, R. S., Singh, R. A., (2004) A study on light trap catches of some rice pests in relation to meteorological factors. Ethiopian Journal of Science, 27(2):165-170
- Sherawat, S.M & Butt, A., (2014). Role of Hunting L. terrestris in Suppression of Wheat Aphid. Pakistan Journal. Zoology., vol. 46(2), pp. 309-315.
- Sony, J. C. Agarwal, V.J. & Ganesh, N (2016). Phytochemical investigation of C. procera. Arabian journal of chemistry.Vol. 9, pp. 5230-5234
- Sulagitti, A., Raghuramn, M. M. S., Reddy, S, & Kumar, S. (2017). Seasonal variations in major insect pest’s incidence on rice and impact of various abiotic factors on their incidence under Varanasi conditions Journal of Entomology & Zoological Studies, 17, 1063.
- Takahashi, Y., & Kiritani, K. (1973). The selective toxicity of insecticides against Insect pests of Rice and their Natural enemies. Institute of agricultural and forest science, Japan. Applied Entomology Zoology 8 (4): 220-226
- Talha Nazir, Sehroon Khan and Dewen Qiu (2019). Biological control of insect pest.. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.81431
- Ukeh DA (2008) Bioactivities of essential oils of Aframomum melegueta and Zingiber officinale both (Zingiberaceae) against Rhyzopertha dominica (Fabricius). J Entomol 5 (3):193–199
- Way, M. J., Heong, K. L. (1994). The Role of biodiversity in the
dynamic and management of insect pests of tropical
irrigated rice- A review. Bulletin of Entomological Research 84:4 - Xue, J., Zhou, X., Xi Zhang, X.C., Yu, L. L., Fan, W. H., Wang, Z., Xu, J. H., Yu Xi1, Zhu, R. Z., Zhou, W. W., Pan, L. P., Li, L. B., Colbourne, K. J., Noda, H.,
Suetsugu, Y., Kobayashi, T., Zheng, Y., Liu, S., Zhang, R., Liu, Y., Luo, D. Y.,
Fang, M. D., Chen, Y., Zhan, L. D., Lv, D. X., Cai, Y., Wang, B. Z., Huang, J. H., Cheng, L. R., Zhang, C. X., Lou, H. Y., Yu, B., Zhuo, C. J., Ye, X. Y., Zhang,Q.W., Shen, C. Z., Yang, M. H., Wang, J., Wang, J., Bao, Y. Y., & Cheng, A. J. (2014). Genomes of the rice pest brown plant hopper and its endosymbionts reveal complex complementary contributions for host adaptation. Genome Biology, 14, 15:521.