Field evaluation of Pseudomonas fluorescens against the sucking pest complex and impact on natural enemies in Bt cotton

Pseudomonas fluorescens was evaluated in 2013-14 and 2014 -15 cotton growing season against the sucking pest complex infested in Bt cotton, aphid, Aphis gossypii, leafhopper, Amrasca devastans and thrips, Thrips tabaci. Reduction in the infestation and pest population was determined after three successive sprays with 15 days interval. The effect of P. fluorescens on seed cotton yield was considered and compared with the untreated check. Side effect on natural enemies, ladybird beetle, Menochilus sexmaculatus, green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea, hover fly, Syrpus sp. and spiders population were also considered. Data obtained from the present study revealed that the soil and foliar application of P. fluorescens was found to be effective in reducing the aphid, leafhopper and thrips population more than 58, 77 and 40 % respectively. Imidacloprid was found to be the most effective chemical treatment which records the least population of aphid, 13.86/3 leaves, leafhopper, 2.90/3 leaves and thrips, 13.80/ 3 leaves and was followed by soil and foliar application of P. fluorescens, 17.98, 3.63 and 19.45/3 leaves of aphid, leafhopper and thrips respectively. The imidacloprid treatment was associated with the greatest reduction in the population of the natural enemies. In contrast P. fluorescens treatments had the minimum side effect on the natural enemies. Significantly higher seed cotton yield of 27.64q/ha was harvested with soil and foliar application of P. fluorescens plots.

[1]  N. Chitra.  Effect of bioinoculants on sucking pests and pod borer complex in urdbean , 2011 .

[2]  S. Sarkar,et al.  Pseudomonas fluorescens as an efficient entomopathogen against Oligonychus coffeae Nietner (Acari: Tetranychidae) infesting tea , 2011 .

[3]  T. New.  The biology of Chrysopidae and Hemerobiidae (Neuroptera), with reference to their usage as biocontrol agents: a review , 2009 .

[4]  A. Kavitha,et al.  Seed treatment with Pseudomonas fluorescens, plant products and synthetic insecticides against the leafhopper, Amrasca devastans (Distant) in cotton , 2009 .

[5]  B. David.  BIOTECHNOLOGICAL APPROACHES IN IPM AND THEIR IMPACT ON ENVIRONMENT , 2008, Journal of Biopesticides.

[6]  K. Z. Ahmed,et al.  Field evaluation of certain pesticides against the cotton bollworms with special reference to their negative impact on beneficial arthropods (2006 cotton season, Minia region, Egypt). , 2007 .

[7]  Clive A. Edwards,et al.  The influence of pesticide applications on Helicoverpa armigera Hübner and sucking pests in transgenic Bt cotton and non-transgenic cotton in China , 2005 .

[8]  G. Ballmer,et al.  Effect of cotton nitrogen fertilization on Bemisia argentifolii populations and honeydew production , 2001 .

[9]  N. Mikul'skaya.  Influence of biological preparations on entomophages. , 2000 .

[10]  A. S. Sidhu,et al.  Assessment of avoidable loss in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum and G. arboreum) due to sucking pests and bollworms. , 1988 .

[11]  A. Dixon,et al.  Distribution of linyphiid spiders in relation to capture of prey in cereal fields , 1986, Pedobiologia.

[12]  K. A. Gomez,et al.  Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. , 1984 .

[13]  S. Riechert,et al.  Spiders as Biological Control Agents , 1984 .

[14]  M. Nyffeler.  Field studies on the ecological role of the spiders as insect predators in agroecosystems (abandoned grassland, meadows, and cereal fields) , 1984 .

[15]  V. G. Panse,et al.  Statistical methods for agricultural workers. , 1954 .