Impact of Ready-mix insecticides on insect pests of cotton seminar

IMPACT OF READY-MIX INSECTICIDES ON INSECT
PESTS OF COTTON
Speaker
Gaurang Rudani
M. Sc. (Agri.) Entomology
Semester :- 3rd
04-AGRMA-02290-2020
Major Guide
Dr. Sushma Deb
Assistant Professor
Department of Agril. Entomology
C. P. College of Agriculture
S. D. Agricultural University
Sardarkrushinagar
Minor Guide
Dr. Manisha Shinde
Assistant Professor (Pl. Pathology)
Department of Plant Pathology
Polytechnic in Agriculture
S. D. Agricultural University
Deesa

.
1. Introduction
2. Classification of ready-mix insecticides
3. Mode of action of ready-mix insecticides
4. Efficacy of ready-mix insecticides on insect
pests of cotton
5. Efficacy of ready-mix insecticides on natural
enemies
6. Advantage and disadvantage of ready-mix
insecticides
7. Conclusion
8. Future thrust
Content

.
INTRODUCTION
Cotton is one of the most important commercial crop known as “king of natural
fiber” and world over commonly referred as “white gold” which belongs to family
Malvaceae and genus Gossypium.
In India, apart from providing 60 per cent of the fiber used in textile industries, the
crop is also a source for 11.5 lakh tonnes of oil, 90 lakh tonnes of animal feed and
about 200 lakh tonnes of cotton stalk that is used for fuel and value addition as
particle boards (Bhamare et al. 2018).
About 60 million people including 4.5 million farmers in India depend on cotton
for their livelihood.
4

.
 Cotton production in India during 2020-21 was around 360 lakh bales of 170 kg from
133.41 lakh hectares with productivity of 459 kg lint/ ha (Annon., 2020).
Maharashtra, Gujarat and Telangana are the major cotton growing states covering
around 70 % area under cotton cultivation and around 62 % of cotton production in
India.
Cotton crop is subjected to damage by 162 pest species right from emergence till the
final picking among which 25 pests are reported to cause damage to cotton crop at
different growth stages.
The use of insecticides has played a major role in increasing cotton productivity from
the last three decades.
Cotton crop alone contributes around 19% of total pesticide consumption in India
5

 Combinations of two or more insecticides having different mode of
action into a single spray solution which expose insects to each
insecticide at the same time known as insecticide mixture.
.
6

Tank Mixtures Pre packed Mixtures
 There are two types of insecticide mixtures:-
Classification of insecticide mixtures
7

.
• Insecticides are mixed in the field directly by
farmers.
• Mixed insecticide may have physical
incompatibility which leads to separation,
flocculation, agglomeration and coagulation of
the ingredients and results in performance
problems.
• Also clog equipment, pump and tank.
1. Tank Mixture
8

.
• It is scientifically developed and tested
products based on compatibility.
• Final product is a ‘ready to use’
material.
 Ready mix insecticide further classified into two
types:-
2. Pre-pack mixture (Ready mix)
A. High risk B. Low risk
9

.
A. High risk
 Control same type of insect species and biological stage.
 Target population is fully susceptible to all toxicants in the mixture.
 E.g. LANCER GOLD- Acephate 50% + Imidacloprid 1.8% SP
B. Low risk
 Used against two different insect pests such as chewing and sucking individuals.
 One of the compounds effective against chewing insects + interferes with the
normal physiology of sucking pests making them more susceptible to 2nd
compound.
 2nd compound specific against sucking pests.
 E.g. POLYTRIN C- Profenofos 40% + Cypermethrin 4% EC
10

.
 Use of single insecticide molecule lead to development of
resistance within in short time.
 In ready mix insecticides chances for the development of cross
resistance is less or it may take long time.
 Ready mix insecticides benefit for Insecticide Resistance
Management (IRM) when appropriately incorporated into
rotation strategies with additional mode(s) of action.
Significance of ready mix insecticide
11

Ideal characteristics of insecticide mixture
1
•Mixtures should be compatible with each
individual component.
2
• Should have additive or synergistic action
3
• Should have broad spectrum activity.
4
• Safe to farmer’s health and environment.
12

Action of ready mix insecticides
 Insecticides are mixed either for synergism or potentiation
 Synergism
→ It involves an increased toxic effect when mixing two compounds
together, which by themselves are harmful to pests.
 Potentiation
→ It refers to the toxicity of a given pesticide being enhanced by the
addition of a less or non-toxic pesticide.
13

Synergistic action
 When two chemicals or insecticides combined together they
produces a greater effect than the sum of the individual effect.
(1 + 3 >>> 4) not just 4
(Maybe 10 times or more)
E.g. Pyrethroids (enhances activity of OP) + OP compounds (chlorpyriphos)
Gangtok, Sikkkim Das, 2014
14

Potentiation action
This effect results when one substance that does not
normally have a toxic effect is added to another chemical,
making the second chemical much more toxic.
(0 + 2 >>> 2) not just 2
Source:- https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/synergism.html#:~:text=Potentiation
15

Ready mix insecticides registered
for agriculture use

A number of insecticides belonging to different chemical groups have been
registered in India and these are being used against diverse pests of various crops.
As on July 1, 2021, total 672 pesticides have been registered under section 9(3) of
the Insecticides Act, 1968 for use in India, among which 80 are ready mix
insecticides.
18

Ready mix insecticides registered for use
in cotton

Table 2: Ready mix insecticides registered for use in cotton in India
Ready mix insecticide
Common name
of the pest
Dosage per hectare
Waiting
period in
days
a.i. (g)
Formulation
(gm/ml)
Dilution
(Litre)
Acephate 50% + Bifenthrin 10% WDG Leaf hopper, Thrips, Bollworms 400 + 80 800 500-750 20
Acephate 25% + Fenvalerate 3% EC American bollworm, Sucking Insects 500 + 60 2000 500
15
Acephate 50% + Imidacloprid 1.8% SP
Aphid, Jassids, Thrips, White flies,
Bollworms
518 1000 500 40
Acetamiprid 1.1% + Cypermethrin 5.5% EC Aphids, Jassids, Thrips, Bollworms 10 + 50 1000 400-1000 30
Buprofezin 15.00% + Acephate 35.00% WP Jassids, Thrips & White fly 187.5 + 437.5 1250 500 -
Buprofezin 20.00% + Acephate 50.00% WP Thrips, Jassids, Mealy bug 250 + 625 1250 500 15
Cypermethrin 10% + Indoxacarb 10% SC Jassids, Thrips and Bollworm 50 + 50 500 400-1000 7
Chlorantraniliprole 9.30% + Lambda-
cyhalothrin 04.60% ZC
Bollworms complex 37.50 250 500 20
19

Ready mix insecticide Common name
of the pest
Dosage / hectare
Waiting
period in
days
a. i. (g)
Formulation
(gm/ml)
Dilution
(Litre)
Cypermethrin 3% + Quinalphos 20% EC
American Bollworm, Spotted
Bollworm, Jassids
30 + 200 to
37.5 + 250
1000-1250 500-600 15
Chlorpyrifos 50% + Cypermethrin 5% EC
Aphid, Jassids, Thrips, Whitefly,
Spodoptera, Spotted Bollworm,
Pink Bollworm, American
Bollworm
500 + 50 1000 500-1000 15
Chlorpyriphos 16% + Alphacypermethrin 1% EC
Spotted Bollworm, Pink Bollworm,
American Bollworm
425 2500 500-750 15
Deltamethrin 1% + Triazophos 35% EC
Spotted Bollworm, Pink
Bollworm, American
Bollworm, White flies
10 + 350 to
12.5 + 450
1000-1250 600-1000 21
Diafenthiuron 47% + Bifenthrin 9.4% SC
Thrips, Leaf hoppers, White fly,
Aphids
293.75 + 58.7 625 500 30
Ethion 40% + Cypermethrin 5% EC American Bollworm 400 + 50 1000 500 15
Fipronil 4% + Acetamiprid 4% SC Aphid, Jassids & White fly 40 + 40 1000 500 30
20

IRAC Guidelines stated that, the insecticide mixtures
may offer benefits for Insecticide Resistance
Management(IRM) when appropriately incorporated into
rotation strategies with additional modes of action.
IRAC, 2021
21

IRAC mixture statement for IRM, 2021
IRAC, 2021
Recommended dosage
Residual activity
Cross resistance
Mode of action
22

Recommended dosage
Mixture statement -1
 Insecticides used at rates higher or lower
than recommended on the label can result in
resistance and/or unwanted effects on non-
target organisms and the environment.
 i.e. Buprofezin 15.00% + Acephate 35.00%
WP 187.5 + 437.5 gm a. i./ ha
23

Mode of Action
 Mixtures with components having the same IRAC mode of action
classification are not recommended for IRM.
 Chlorpyrifos + Aldicarb
 Thiamethoxam 12.60% + Lambda- cyhalothrin 09.50% ZC
24

Cross resistance
When using mixtures, consider any known cross-resistance
issues between the individual components for the targeted
pests.
Mixtures become less effective if resistance is already
developing to one or both active ingredients.
Increase the chances for the development of resistance.
25

Residual activity
• The IRM benefits of an insecticide mixture are
greatest if the two components have similar periods of
residual insecticidal activity.
• Mixtures of insecticides with unequal periods of
residual insecticide activity may offer an IRM benefit
for the period where both insecticides are active.
 e.g.
1. Chlorpyrifos 50.00% + Cypermethrin 05.00% EC
2. Acephate 50% + Imidacloprid 1.8% SP
15 days
26
40 days

Insecticide Resistance Management (IRM)
 Effective insecticide resistance management (IRM) strategies seek to
minimize the selection of resistance to any one type of insecticide.
 In practice, alternations, sequences or rotations of compounds from
different MoA groups provide sustainable and effective IRM.
MoA a MoA b MoA c MoA d MoA a MoA b
Sequence of insecticides through season
27

Table 3: Sequence of ready mix insecticides on different insect pests of cotton
Sr.
No.
Ready mix insecticide Common name of the pest
1 Buprofezin 15.00% + Acephate 35.00% WP Jassids, Thrips & White fly
2 Acetamiprid 1.1% + Cypermethrin 5.5% EC Aphids, Jassids, Thrips, Bollworms
3 Profenofos 40% + Cypermethrin 4% EC Bollworm complex
28

29
Case studies on use of ready mix
insecticides in cotton
Review of Research
Work

30
Bollworm complex in cotton
30

Tr.
No.
Treatment
Fruiting body damage* (%) Population of boll worms (No./plant)
Trial I Trial II Trial I Trial II
PTC PM PRC PTC PM PRC PTC PM PRC PTC PM PRC
T1 Flubendiamide + Thiacloprid-480 SC @ 72 gm a.i./ha 6.05
0.70
(4.80)b
89.58 7.80
0.95
(5.59)
abc
89.85 3.33
0.33
(0.91)a
85.86 5.70
1.10
(1.26)ab
75.03
0.53
(4.18)ab
93.76 9.00
1.00
(5.74)abc
90.74 4.33
0.40
(0.95)a
86.82 6.50
1.20
(1.30)ab
76.11
0.53
(4.18)ab
94.51 8.60
0.75
(4.97)a
92.73 5.00
0.17
(0.82)a
95.29 5.50
0.85
(1.16)a
80.00
T4 Flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 gm a.i./ha 7.33
0.60
(4.44)ab
92.64 7.10
1.15
(6.16)c
86.50 3.67
0.17
(0.82)a
93.39 6.20
0.65
(1.07)a
86.43
T5 Thiacloprid 240 SC @ 60 gm a.i./ha 7.13
4.86
(12.74)c
38.17 8.50
6.00
(14.18)d
41.18 3.33
1.57
(1.44)b
32.95 6.40
2.75
(1.80)c
44.39
T6 Spinosad 45SC + Imidacloprid 200 SL @ 90+ 30 g a.i. /ha 7.21
0.67
(4.70)b
91.63 7.60
1.05
(5.88)bc
88.49 3.33
0.53
(1.01)a
77.29 6.50
1.75
(1.50)bc
65.16
T7 Indoxacarb 14.5 SC + Imidacloprid 200 SL @ 75+30 g a.i./ha 7.14
0.49
(4.01)a
93.78 8.20
0.85
(5.29)ab
91.36 3.00
0.34
(0.91)a
84.07 6.30
1.20
(1.30)ab
75.35
T8 Untreated control 8.10
8.93
(17.39)d
- 9.00
10.80
(19.19)e
- 4.33
3.04
(1.88)c
- 6.60
5.10
(2.37)d
-
SEd - 0.282 - - 0.375 - - 0.109 - - 0.150 -
CD (0.05 %) - 0.604 - - 0.804 - - 0.235 - - 0.321 -
Table 4: Efficacy of Flubendiamide + Thiacloprid - 480 SC against bollworms in cotton
PTC – Pretreatment count; PM – Pooled mean; PRC – Percent reduction over control,; Values in parentheses are “x+0.5 (* arc sine) transformed values; In a column means
followed by a common letter are not significantly different by DNMRT (P=0.05)
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu Kumar et al., 2010 31

Tr.
No.
Treatment
Dosage g
a.i./ha
Pre count
Days after 1st spray
1 3 7 14
T1
Cypermethrin 10% +
Indoxacarb 10% SC
40 + 40
10.97
(19.34)
6.09
(14.25)
7.41
(15.77)
8.27
(16.69)
9.21
(17.64)
T2
Cypermethrin 10% +
Indoxacarb 10% SC
50 + 50
11.08
(19.43)
5.87
(14.02)
6.78
(15.07)
7.56
(15.93)
8.88
(17.33)
T3
Cypermethrin 10% +
Indoxacarb 10% SC
60 + 60
10.99
(19.36)
5.24
(13.25)
5.49
(13.55)
7.32
(15.69)
8.06
(16.49)
T4
Cypermethrin 10% +
Indoxacarb 10% SC
75 + 75
11.18
(19.53)
5.11
(13.06)
5.28
(13.28)
7.04
(15.38)
7.87
(16.29)
T5
Cypermethrin 10% +
Indoxacarb 10% SC
100 + 100
11.23
(19.58)
4.13
(11.72)
4.67
(12.56)
6.33
(14.57)
7.15
(15.51)
T6
Cypermethrin 10% +
Indoxacarb 10% SC
200 + 200
10.91
(19.28)
3.91
(11.40)
4.28
(11.94)
5.98
(14.15)
6.70
(14.50)
T7 Cypermethrin 10% EC 50
10.54
(18.94)
6.13
(14.30)
7.43
(15.79)
9.31
(17.75)
10.79
(19.16)
11.41
(19.73)
5.87
(13.98)
6.14
(14.34)
7.19
(15.52)
9.24
(17.68)
T9 Indoxacarb 10% SC 50
10.89
(19.27)
5.36
(13.38)
5.69
(13.79)
7.13
(15.38)
7.87
(16.29)
11.27
(19.59)
3.78
(11.21)
4.57
(12.34)
6.17
(14.38)
7.03
(15.37)
T11 Untreated control -
10.81
(19.18)
11.27
(19.61)
12.31
(20.53)
14.61
(22.46)
16.92
(24.26)
SE ± - 0.31 0.38 0.38 0.35 0.37
CD at 5% - NS 1.14 1.14 1.03 1.1
Table 5: Effect of combi-product on per cent infestation of bollworm in fruiting bodies
Figures in parentheses indicate arcsine transformed values.
Akola, Maharashtra Surpam et al., 2015 32

Table 6: Effect of different insecticides against fruiting body damage due to bollworm complex in cotton
Tr.
No.
Treatment
Dose
a. i/ha
Conc.
%
First Spray Second Spray Third Spray
Mean
PTC
7
DAS
14
DAS
7
DAS
14
DAS
7
DAS
14
DAS
T1 Chlorantraniliprole 9.3% +
Lambda cyhalothrin 4.6% ZC
37.5 g 0.006 %
12.38
(20.37)
4.88
(12.51)
6.50
(14.74)
5.82
(13.91)
6.89
(15.19)
5.44
(13.31)
6.79
(15.10)
6.05
(14.20)
T2 Flubendiamide 19.92% +
Thiacloprid 19.92%SC
48 + 48 g 0.02 %
12.94
(20.81)
5.24
(13.02)
6.59
(14.86)
5.86
(14.00)
6.98
(15.31)
6.42
(14.65)
7.02
(15.35)
6.35
(14.58)
T3 Profenophos 40% +
Cypermethrine 4% EC
440 g 0.088 %
10.29
(18.49)
6.94
(15.23)
8.55
(16.98)
7.22
(15.55)
8.71
(17.15)
7.35
(15.67)
8.87
(17.14)
7.94
(16.35)
T4 Cypermethrin 3 % +
Quinalphos 20% EC
230 g 0.046 %
17.79
(24.75)
12.33
(20.54)
14.31
(22.03)
12.97
(20.73)
15.04
(22.80)
12.60
(20.51)
14.3
(21.19)
13.59
(21.58)
T5 Indoxacarb 14.5% +
Acetamiprid 7.7 % SC
88.8 g 0.046 %
12.99
(21.07)
4.67
(12.42)
6.09
(14.22)
5.23
(13.08)
6.00
(14.11)
5.06
(12.53)
6.07
(13.24)
5.52
(13.57)
T6 Thiamethoxam 12.6% +
Lambda cyhalothrin 9.5 % ZC
44 g 0.008 %
11.94
(20.05)
5.70
(13.70)
7.19
(15.42)
6.81
(14.93)
7.86
(16.23)
7.01
(14.98)
7.27
(15.47)
6.97
(15.18)
T7 Chlorantraniliprole 8.8 % +
Thiamethoxam 17.5 % SC
150 g 0.026 %
11.62
(19.81)
3.71
(10.99)
5.70
(13.71)
4.98
(12.87)
5.30
(13.29)
4.93
(12.82)
5.82
(13.84)
5.00
(12.87)
T8 Novaluron 5.25% +
Indoxacarb 4.5% SC
43.31+ 37.13 g 0.019 %
11.87
(20.12)
6.54
(14.57)
7.61
(15.79)
7.07
(15.39)
8.68
(16.84)
7.12
(15.28)
8.36
(16.67)
7.5
(15.95)
T9 Spinatorum 10% +
Sulfoxaflor 30% WG
120 g 0.002 %
11.60
(19.86)
5.28
(13.04)
6.78
(14.93)
6.18
(14.12)
7.55
(15.84)
7.00
(15.22)
7.12
(15.47)
6.65
(14.93)
T10 Untreated control - -
12.51
(20.68)
30.9
(33.74)
48.85
(44.32)
72.14
(58.12)
84.73
(66.97)
91.72
(73.29)
96.12
(78.61)
70.74
(57.23)
SE ± - 1.38 1.34 1.38 1.06 1.45 1.70 0.59
CD @ 0.5% NS 4.15 4.03 4.14 3.18 4.35 5.10 1.78
CV % - 15.04 12.46 12.45 8.61 12.09 13.25 5.26
Figure in parentheses are angular transformed values. PTC- Pre treatment count, DAS- Days after spraying `
Parbhani , Maharashtra Bhujade et al., 2018 33

Tr.
No.
Treatments Dose ml a.i./ha
H. armigera (Pooled means of two seasons)
After first spray After second spray
Pre-count 7 DAS 14 DAS 7 DAS 14 DAS
T1
Acetamiprid 0.4% +
Cypermethrin 2% EC
10 + 50
10.17
(3.17)*
5.75
(2.47)
7.93
(2.88)
4.48
(2.22)
5.49
(2.43)
T2
Acetamiprid 0.4% +
Cypermethrin 2% EC
20 + 100
10.10
(3.16)
3.65
(2.00)
6.46
(2.61)
3.26
(1.92)
4.28
(2.16)
T3
Acetamiprid 0.4% +
Cypermethrin 2% EC
40+200
11.48
(3.37)
2.26
(1.64)
5.36
(2.40)
2.01
(1.56)
3.11
(1.87)
T4
Acetamiprid 0.4% +
Quinalphos 20 % EC
10 + 500
10.73
(3.20)
4.69
(2.25)
7.00
(2.70)
2.95
(1.81)
4.73
(2.26)
T5
Acetamiprid 0.4% +
Quinalphos 20 % EC
20 + 1000
10.60
(3.23)
3.00
(1.81)
5.59
(2.43)
2.35
(1.63)
4.03
(2.10)
T6
Acetamiprid 0.4% +
Quinalphos 20 % EC
40 + 2000
9.53
(3.04)
1.51
(1.36)
3.92
(2.07)
0.83
(1.13)
2.64
(1.76)
T7
Acetamiprid 0.4% +
Chlorpyrifos 20 % EC
10 + 500
9.73
(3.09)
5.23
(2.37)
7.04
(2.70)
3.36
(2.00)
5.04
(2.33)
T8
Acetamiprid 0.4% +
20 + 1000
10.85
(3.25)
3.83
(2.56)
7.62
(2.43)
2.38
(1.64)
4.11
(2.12)
T9
Acetamiprid 0.4% +
40 + 2000
11.35
(3.38)
2.14
(1.58)
4.15
(2.13)
1.21
(1.24)
2.89
(1.83)
T10 Acetamiprid 20 SP 20
9.55
(3.04)
6.60
(2.56)
8.13
(2.82)
5.61
(2.39)
6.24
(2.53)
T11 Quinalphos 25 EC 500
9.55
(3.07)
5.55
(2.42)
6.96
(2.65)
4.49
(2.15)
5.52
(2.41)
T12 Chlorpyrifos 20 EC 500
10.56
(3.17)
5.62
(2.42)
7.42
(2.74)
4.69
(2.22)
5.93
(2.47)
T13 Cypermethrin 10 EC 75
10.40
(3.22)
6.89
(2.69)
8.52
(2.96)
5.06
(2.28)
6.56
(2.62)
T14
Untreated control 10.45
(3.21)
11.90
(3.46)
13.60
(3.68)
14.49
(3.78)
15.69
(3.93)
SE ± 0.272 0.142 0.095 0.126 0.077
CD N. S. 0.412 0.278 0.365 0.224
Table 7 (a): Effect of insecticidal combinations on per cent square damage due to Helicoverpa armigera in cotton
*Figures in parentheses are Arc Sine transformed values, DAS=Days after spray
Parbhani , Maharashtra Bhamare and Wadnerkar, 2018 34

Tr. No. Treatments Dose ml a.i./ha
E. vittella (Pooled means of two seasons)
After first spray After second spray
Pre- count 7 Das 14 Das 7 Das 14 Das
T1
Acetamiprid 0.4% +
Cypermethrin 2% EC
10+50 2.96
(1.86)
1.70
(1.45)
2.44
(1.70)
1.88
(1.52)
2.09
(1.60)
T2
Acetamiprid 0.4% +
Cypermethrin 2% EC
20+100 2.46
(1.69)
1.31
(1.30)
2.14
(1.60)
1.62
(1.40)
1.72
(1.49)
T3
Acetamiprid 0.4% +
Cypermethrin 2% EC
40+200 2.55
(1.71)
0.77
(1.09)
1.45
(1.38)
1.10
(1.26)
1.30
(1.37)
T4
Acetamiprid 0.4% +
Quinalphos 20 % EC
10+500 2.15
(1.62)
1.51
(1.40)
1.86
(1.52)
1.35
(1.21)
1.63
(1.45)
T5
Acetamiprid 0.4% +
Quinalphos 20 % EC
20+1000 2.61
(1.75)
1.17
(1.29)
1.64
(1.45)
1.08
(1.11)
1.28
(1.33)
T6
Acetamiprid 0.4% +
Quinalphos 20 % EC
40+2000 2.66
(1.80)
0.69
(1.04)
1.21
(1.30)
0.39
(0.85)
1.08
(1.25)
T7
Acetamiprid 0.4% +
10+500 3.17
(1.92)
1.71
(1.48)
2.54
(1.74)
1.42
(1.25)
1.90
(1.54)
T8
Acetamiprid 0.4% +
20+1000 2.45
(1.73)
1.26
(1.33)
1.99
(1.57)
1.16
(1.08)
1.30
(1.34)
T9
Acetamiprid 0.4% +
40+2000 2.57
(1.77)
0.83
(1.12)
1.73
(1.50)
0.56
(0.89)
1.23
(1.30)
T10 Acetamiprid 20 SP 20 2.56
(1.75)
2.03
(1.56)
2.43
(1.70)
2.32
(1.61)
2.35
(1.68)
T11 Quinalphos 25 EC 500 2.60
(1.77)
1.76
(1.48)
2.44
(1.70)
2.04
(1.51)
2.13
(1.62)
T12 Chlorpyrifos 20 EC 500 2.42
(1.74)
2.03
(1.59)
2.40
(1.69)
2.05
(1.46)
2.10
(1.60)
T13 Cypermethrin 10 EC 75 2.74
(1.81)
2.06
(1.59)
2.49
(1.72)
2.19
(1.53)
2.33
(1.67)
T14 Untreated control - 3.00
(1.87)
3.24
(1.88)
3.59
(2.01)
4.56
(2.06)
5.09
(2.34)
SE± 0.078 0.055 0.108 0.045 0.069
CD N.S. 0.160 0.315 0.134 0.202
Table 7 (b): Effect of insecticidal combinations on per cent square damage due to Earias vittella in cotton
*Figures in parentheses are Arc Sine transformed values, DAS=Days after spray
Parbhani , Maharashtra Bhamare and Wadnerkar, 2018 35

36
Table 8: Efficacy of different novel insecticides against bollworms and yield of cotton
Tr.
No.
Chemical
Dose
(g a.i.)/ ha
Helicoverpa armigera
(larvae/plant)
Pectinophora
gossypiella
(larvae/10
bolls) at 120
DAS
Yield (q/ha)
1DBS 7DAS
T1 Spinetoram 10 + Sulfoxaflor 40 WG 120 2.95 0.50 (1.00) 2.39 (1.70) 13.72 (3.76)
T2 Spinetoram 10 + Sulfoxaflor 40 WG 140 2.01 0.39 (0.94) 2.27 (1.66) 14.27 (3.83)
T3
Spinetoram 12 SC 30 2.14 0.72 (1.10) 2.61 (1.76) 12.00 (3.53)
T4 Sulfoxaflor 24 SC 90 2.01 2.13 (1.62) 4.02 (2.13) 8.04 (2.89)
T5
Spinetoram 12 SC 36 2.15 0.52 (1.01) 2.54 (1.74) 11.79 (3.50)
T6 Sulfoxaflor 24 SC 108 2.12 1.89 (1.55) 3.78 (2.07) 10.71 (3.33)
T7 Pyriproxyfen 5 + Fenpropathrin 15 EC 37.5+112.5 2.24 1.42 (1.39) 3.31 (1.95) 9.10 (3.07)
T8 Pyriproxyfen 5 EC 37.5 2.35 1.79 (1.51) 3.68 (2.04) 8.84 (3.03)
T9 Fenpropathrin 15 EC 112.5 2.18 1.73 (1.49) 3.62 (2.03) 8.55 (3.01)
T10
Control (Unsprayed) -- 2.04 2.72 (1.79) 8.70 (3.03) 3.90 (2.09)
T11
Control (Water spray) -- 2.25 2.80 (1.82) 8.50 (3.00) 4.07 (2.12)
F Test NS S S S
SEd 0.36 0.01 0.02 0.12
CD (P = 0.05) 0.12 0.05 0.05 0.35
CV % 6.34 5.65 8.34 8.72
DBS: Day before spray , DAS: Day after spray Figures in parentheses are square root transformed values
Raichur, Karnataka Hanchinal et al., 2018 36

Tr.
No.
Treatment
Dose ml
/L
Bollworm complex damage in green fruiting bodies (%)
Damage at
harvest
(%)
Pre-
treatment
1st spray 2nd spray 3rd spray
7DAS 14DAS Mean 7DAS 14DAS Mean 7DAS 14DAS Mean
T1
Pyriproxifen 5 % +
Fenpropathrin 15 % EC
1 ml
8.30
(2.88)
5.48
(2.34)
8.93
(2.98)
7.21
(2.66)
4.04
(2.00)
6.31
(2.50)
5.17
(2.25)
3.68
(1.92)
4.13
(2.03)
3.91
(1.97)
37.33
(37.59)
T2
Cypermethrin 3 % +
Quinalphos 20 % EC
2 ml
7.38
(2.71)
4.18
(2.04)
7.24
(2.69)
5.71
(2.37)
3.78
(1.94)
7.05
(2.65)
5.41
(2.30)
2.76
(1.66)
3.90
(1.97)
3.33
(1.82)
28.00
(31.91)
T3
Novaluron 5.25 % +
Indoxacarb 4.5% SC
1.75 ml
7.34
(2.70)
3.70
(2.92)
7.35
(2.70)
5.53
(2.31)
3.08
(1.75)
6.27
(2.49)
4.67
(2.12)
1.87
(1.36)
3.72
(1.93)
2.79
(1.64)
21.33
(27.49)
T4
Thiamethoxam 12.6 % +
Lambda cyhalothrin 9.5 %
ZC
0.4 ml
6.66
(2.58)
3.98
(1.99)
6.10
(2.47)
5.04
(2.23)
3.57
(1.88)
6.93
(2.63)
5.25
(2.26)
2.55
(1.59)
4.28
(2.07)
3.42
(1.83)
22.67
(28.41)
T5
Indoxacarb 14.5 % +
1 ml
7.00
(2.63)
2.27
(1.48)
6.41
(2.53)
4.34
(2.00)
1.54
(1.24)
6.53
(2.54)
4.04
(1.89)
2.41
(1.54)
3.39
(1.83)
2.90
(1.69)
19.56
(26.17)
T6
Profenofos 40 % +
Cypermethrin 4 % EC
2 ml
8.52
(2.90)
3.34
(1.82)
5.84
(2.42)
4.59
(2.12)
2.95
(1.70)
6.24
(2.49)
4.60
(2.10)
2.29
(1.51)
3.61
(1.90)
2.95
(1.70)
20.44
(26.81)
9.30
(3.04)
14.02
(3.74)
14.70
(3.83)
14.36
(3.79)
13.40
(3.66)
10.14
(3.18)
11.77
(3.42)
9.74
(3.12)
8.14
(2.85)
8.94
(2.98)
48.44
(44.11)
SE (m) ± 0.13 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.08 1.63
CD at 5 % - 0.30 0.37 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.24 0.22 0.23 5.02
Table 9: Average per cent bollworm complex damage in green fruiting bodies of cotton
Note: Figures in parentheses are corresponding square root transformation values. DAS– Days After Spraying
Akola, Maharashtra Borude et al., 2018 37

Tr. No. Treatments
Mean numbers of aphids/ leaf**
Aphids/leaf
T1
Spirotetramat 12% + imidacloprid 36% - 480 SC @500
ml / ha
2.47
(5.83)
2.87
(8.23)
2.69
(7.23)
T2
Spirotetramat 12% + imidacloprid 36% - 480 SC @
625 ml / ha
1.79
(2.99)
2.34
(5.47)
2.27
(4.68)
T3
Spirotetramat 12% + imidacloprid 36% - 480 SC @ 750
ml / ha
2.53
(6.40)
2.60
(6.76)
2.51
(6.30)
T4 Spirotetramat 150 OD @ 600 ml / ha
2.26
(4.85)
2.71
(7.34)
2.52
(6.35)
T5 Imidacloprid 200 SL @ 900 ml / ha
2.57
(6.60)
2.65
(7.08)
2.47
(6.10)
T6 Profenophos 50 EC @ 1250 ml/ha
2.54
(6.45)
2.69
(7.23)
2.76
(7.61)
T7 Thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 600 ml / ha
2.66
(7.07)
2.65
(7.02)
2.75
(7.56)
T8 Untreated (Control)
3.75
(14.06)
3.73
(13.91)
3.66
(13.39)
Y 0.023 0.024 0.019
T 0.132 0.089 0.089
Y x T 0.064 0.067 0.054
Y 0.63 0.066 0.054
T 0.521 0.298 0.299
Y x T 0.179 0.187 0.152
CV% 7.07 7.17 5.94
Figures in parentheses are retransformed value ** Pooled mean of two years
Table 10(a): Evaluation of new combination product Spirotetramat 12% + Imidacloprid 36% - 480 SC against sucking pests of cotton
SDAU, Dantiwada Patel et al., 2010 39

Tr. No. Treatments
Mean numbers of Leaf hopper/ leaf**
Leaf hoppers/leaf
T1
ml / ha
1.90
(3.61)
2.02
(4.84)
1.95
(3.80)
T2
625 ml / ha
1.54
(1.89)
1.75
(3.06)
1.55
(2.53)
T3
750 ml / ha
1.72
(2.95)
1.98
(3.45)
1.80
(3.24)
1.95
(3.80)
2.12
(4.49)
2.06
(4.24)
2.14
(4.57)
2.18
(4.75)
2.47
(6.10)
2.27
(5.15)
2.24
(5.01)
2.31
(5.33)
2.15
(4.62)
2.28
(5.19)
2.30
(5.29)
T8
Untreated (Control) 2.95
(8.70)
2.87
(8.23)
3.07
(9.42)
Y 0.011 0.11 0.010
T 0.181 0.179 0.257
Y x T 0.032 0.030 0.027
Y 0.032 0.073 0.027
T 0.174 0.206 0.211
Y x T 0.090 0.085 0.76
CV% 5.46 4.17 3.66
Table10(b): Evaluation of new combination product Spirotetramat 12% + Imidacloprid 36% - 480 SC against sucking pests of cotton

Tr. No. Treatments
Mean numbers of thrips/ leaf**
Thrips /leaf
T1
Spirotetramat 12% + imidacloprid 36% - 480 SC
@500 ml / ha
2.49
(6.20)
2.79
(7.78)
2.57
(6.60)
T2
Spirotetramat 12% + imidacloprid 36% - 480
SC @ 625 ml / ha
2.03
(3.98)
2.26
(4.71)
1.90
(3.26)
T3
Spirotetramat 12% + imidacloprid 36% - 480
SC @ 750 ml / ha
2.34
(5.47)
2.61
(6.81)
2.44
(5.95)
2.35
(5.52)
2.63
(7.01)
2.01
(3.81)
2.56
(6.55)
2.60
(6.76)
2.49
(6.20)
2.62
(6.93)
2.72
(7.39)
2.71
(7.34)
2.66
(7.07)
2.71
(7.34)
2.71
(7.34)
3.58
(12.81)
3.54
(12.53)
3.38
(11.42)
Y 0.011 0.020 0.016
T 0.181 0.106 0.140
Y x T 0.032 0.058 0.045
Y 0.011 0.058 0.42
T 0.29 0.334 0.470
Y x T 0.035 0.163 0.128
CV% 6.38 6.28 5.15
Table 10(c): Evaluation of new combination product Spirotetramat 12% + Imidacloprid 36% - 480 SC against sucking pests of cotton

Tr. No. Treatments
Mean numbers of Whiteflies/ leaf**
Whiteflies/leaf
T1
ml / ha
1.82
(2.58)
1.93
(3.72)
2.02
(4.08)
T2
625 ml / ha
1.37
(1.94)
1.68
(2.82)
1.66
(2.68)
T3
Spirotetramat 12% + imidacloprid 36% - 480 SC @ 750
ml / ha
1.71
(2.93)
1.84
(3.38)
2.00
(4.00)
1.71
(2.92)
1.93
(3.72)
2.30
(5.29)
2.12
(4.49)
1.99
(3.96)
2.29
(5.24)
2.21
(4.88)
2.40
(5.76)
2.44
(5.95)
2.26
(5.10)
2.38
(5.66)
2.59
(6.70)
2.85
(8.12)
2.94
(8.64)
3.12
(9.73)
Y 0.11 0.014 0.014
T 0.209 0.176 0.223
Y x T 0.032 0.040 0.039
Y 0.031 0.039 0.038
T 0.299 0.144 0.566
Y x T 0.089 0.111 0.109
CV% 5.92 5.53 4.93
Table 10(d): Evaluation of new combination product Spirotetramat 12% + Imidacloprid 36% - 480 SC against sucking pests of cotton

Tr. No. Treatment
Aphids (No./ Plant)
Trial I Trial II
PTC PM PRC PTC PM PRC
T1 Flubendiamide + Thiacloprid 480 SC @ 72 g a.i. /ha 18.33
0.47
(0.98)a
96.37 20.30
1.60
(1.45)c
89.13
T2 Flubendiamide + Thiacloprid 480 SC @ 96 g a.i. /ha 23.00
0.24
(0.86)a
98.55 26.40
0.50
(1.00)ab
97.39
T3 Flubendiamide +Thiacloprid 480 SC @ 120 g a.i. /ha 20.00
0.10
(0.77)a
99.29 22.30
0.25
(0.87)a
98.45
T4 Flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i. /ha 19.33
8.57
(3.01)b
37.21 21.90
12.85
(3.65)d
19.11
T5 Thiacloprid 240 SC @ 60 g a.i. /ha 25.00
0.04
(0.73)a
99.80 27.60
1.50
(1.41)c
92.51
T6 Spinosad 45 SC + Imidacloprid 200 SL @ 90+30 g a.i. /ha 21.00
0.04
(0.73)a
99.76 23.90
1.05
(1.24)bc
93.94
T7 Indoxacarb 14.5 SC + Imidacloprid 200 SL @ 75+30 g a.i./ha 23.33
0.27
(0.87)a
98.39 27.00
1.05
(1.24)bc
94.64
T8 Untreated control 15.67
11.07
(3.40)b
21.30
15.45
(3.99)d
SEd ±
0.263 0.143
CD (0.05 %) 0.565 0.308
Table 11(a): Efficacy of Flubendiamide + Thiacloprid - 480 SC against aphids in cotton
PTC- Pre treatment count; PM – Pooled mean; PRC – Percent reduction over control; Values in parentheses are “x+0.5
transformed values; In a column means followed by a common letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P=0.05)

Tr. No. Treatment
Jassids (No./plant)
Trial I Trial II
PTC PM PRC PTC PM PRC
T1 Flubendiamide + Thiacloprid 480 SC @ 72 g a.i. /ha 20.00 1.14 (1.28)a 90.20 21.00 2.30 (1.67)b 79.58
T2 Flubendiamide + Thiacloprid 480 SC @ 96 g a.i. /ha 17.33 0.70 (1.10)a 93.02 20.10 1.40 (1.38)ab 87.01
T3 Flubendiamide +Thiacloprid 480 SC @ 120 g a.i. /ha 22.33
0.40
(0.95)a
96.91 21.90
0.90
(1.18)ab
92.34
T4 Flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i. /ha 21.67 7.47 (2.82)b 40.48 21.50 8.75 (3.04)c 24.10
T5 Thiacloprid 240 SC @ 60 g a.i. /ha 20.33 0.57 (1.03)a 95.16 22.90 1.15 (1.28)ab 90.63
T6 Spinosad 45 SC + Imidacloprid 200 SL @ 90+30 g a.i. /ha 27.00 0.44 (0.97)a 97.22 27.20 0.70 (1.10)a 95.20
T7 Indoxacarb 14.5 SC + Imidacloprid 200 SL @ 75+30 g a.i./ha 22.00 0.30 (0.89)a 97.64 25.40 0.60 (1.05)a 95.59
T8 Untreated control 15.67 9.07 (3.09)b 20.70 11.10 (3.41)c
SEd ± 0.271 0.259
CD (0.05 %) 0.581 0.555
Table 11(b): Efficacy of Flubendiamide + Thiacloprid - 480 SC against jassids in cotton
PTC- Pre treatment count; PM – Pooled mean; PRC – Percent reduction over control; Values in parentheses are “x+0.5
transformed values; In a column means followed by a common letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P=0.05)

Tr. no. Treatments
Dosage
gram or ml. a.i./ha
Pre- count
Number of aphid per plant
(Days after 1st spray)
1 3 7 14
T1
Cypermethrin 10% +
indoxacarb 10% SC
40 + 40
32.66
(5.75)
11.30
(3.41)
13.56
(3.73)
15.61
(4.00)
18.35
(4.33)
T2
Cypermethrin 10% +
indoxacarb 10% SC
50 + 50
33.87
(5.86)
9.10
(3.09)
11.30
(3.43)
14.13
(3.82)
16.72
(4.14)
T3
Cypermethrin 10% +
indoxacarb 10% SC
60 + 60
37.15
(6.13)
7.78
(2.85)
9.11
(3.09)
13.39
(3.72)
15.29
(3.97)
T4
Cypermethrin 10% +
indoxacarb 10% SC
75 + 75
31.39
(5.64)
6.81
(2.70)
7.10
(2.75)
9.33
(3.13)
11.93
(3.52)
T5
Cypermethrin 10% +
indoxacarb 10% SC
100 + 100
33.80
(6.36)
5.15
(2.37)
6.30
(2.60)
9.12
(3.10)
11.03
(3.39)
T6
Cypermethrin 10% +
indoxacarb 10% SC
200 + 200
36.89
(6.11)
4.60
(2.31)
5.90
(2.52)
8.54
(3.00)
10.63
(3.35)
39.10
(6.04)
8.30
(2.36)
11.84
(3.51)
17.36
(4.22)
24.19
(4.96)
34.40
(5.90)
7.13
(2.83)
9.77
(3.20)
14.64
(3.89)
20.71
(4.60)
35.10
(5.96)
11.90
(3.52)
16.56
(4.13)
24.11
(4.96)
32.42
(5.73)
34.80
(5.94)
9.90
(3.22)
15.86
(4.04)
21.52
(4.69)
27.32
(5.27)
T11 Untreated control
31.10
(5.62)
33.40
(5.82)
35.82
(6.02)
38.67
(6.25)
44.24
(6.68)
S.E. + 0.17 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.06
C.D. (P=0.05) NS 0.35 0.24 0.20 0.19
Table 12 (a) : Effect of combi-product on cotton aphids
Figures in parentheses indicate √x+0.5 values. NS=Non-significant
Akola, Maharashtra Surpam et al., 2015 45

Tr.
No.
Treatments
Dosage
gram or ml a.i./ha
Pre- count
Number of thrips/plant
Days after 1st spray
1 3 7 14
T1
Cypermethrin 10% +
indoxacarb 10% SC
40 + 40
63.57
(8.00)
23.54
(4.90)
27.34
(5.27)
30.54
(5.57)
33.26
(5.80)
T2
Cypermethrin 10% +
indoxacarb 10% SC
50 + 50
64.18
(8.05)
21.63
(4.70)
24.15
(4.96)
27.85
(5.32)
31.35
(5.64)
T3
Cypermethrin 10% +
indoxacarb 10% SC
60 + 60
64.83
(8.08)
17.96
(4.29)
20.53
(4.58)
24.20
(4.96)
27.15
(5.25)
T4
Cypermethrin 10% +
indoxacarb 10% SC
75 + 75
65.78
(8.14)
16.08
(4.07)
19.15
(4.43)
23.51
(4.90)
25.81
(5.12)
T5
Cypermethrin 10% +
indoxacarb 10% SC
100 + 100
69.14
(8.34)
15.38
(3.98)
17.54
(4.24)
21.68
(4.70)
23.62
(4.91)
T6
Cypermethrin 10% +
indoxacarb 10% SC
200 + 200
70.34
(8.41)
13.73
(3.77)
14.80
(3.90)
18.73
(4.38)
20.84
(4.61)
71.67
(8.49)
22.20
(4.76)
25.58
(5.10)
36.07
(6.04)
40.78
(6.41)
7.187
(8.50)
19.94
(4.52)
21.29
(4.66)
31.18
(5.62)
35.16
(5.97)
73.18
(8.58)
25.67
(5.11)
28.48
(5.35)
43.27
(6.61)
49.23
(7.04)
69.91
(8.39)
22.23
(4.79)
23.66
(4.91)
35.19
(5.98)
41.10
(6.44)
72.80
(8.56)
73.96
(8.62)
74.78
(8.67)
76.67
(8.78)
79.18
(8.92)
S.E. + 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.12
C.D. (P=0.05) NS 0.17 0.24 0.28 0.33
Table 12 (b) : Effect of combi-product on thrips
Akola, Maharashtra Surpam et al., 2015
Figures in parentheses indicate √x+0.5 values. NS=Non-significant 46

Tr. No. Treatment Dose (g or ml ai/ha)
Number of leaf hopper per leaf
1 DBS 7 DAFS 7 DASS 7 DATS Mean
T1 Spinetoram 10 + Sulfoxaflor 30 WG 120
2.07
(1.75)
0.4
(1.18)
0.66
(1.28)
0.76
(1.32)
0.61
(1.26)
2.33
(1.82)
0.30
(1.14)
0.53
(1.23)
0.60
(1.26)
0.48
(1.21)
T3 Spinetoram 10 WG 30
2.23
(1.80)
1.70
(1.64)
1.70
(1.64)
2.20
(1.78)
1.87
(1.69)
T4 Sulfoxaflor 30 WG 90
2.73
(1.93)
0.42
(1.19)
0.73
(1.31)
0.60
(1.26)
0.58
(1.25)
2.41
(1.85)
1.67
(1.63)
2.10
(1.76)
2.63
(1.90)
2.13
(1.77)
2.13
(1.77)
0.30
(1.14)
0.67
(1.29)
0.53
(1.23)
0.50
(1.22)
T7 Pyriproxyfen 5 EC + Fenpropathrin 15 EC 37.5 + 112.5
1.90
(1.70)
1.47
(1.57)
1.53
(1.59)
2.07
(1.75)
1.69
(1.64)
T8 Pyriproxyfen 5 EC 37.5
2.27
(1.00)
1.43
(1.55)
1.50
(1.58)
2.13
(1.76)
1.69
(1.64)
T9 Fenpropathrin 15 EC 112.5
2.03
(1.81)
1.30
(1.51)
1.83
(1.68)
2.17
(1.78)
1.77
(1.66)
T10 Control Water spray
2.13
(1.74)
2.43
(1.85)
4.10
(2.25)
4.20
(2.28)
3.59
(2.13)
T11 Control Unsprayed
2.03
(1.77)
2.53
(1.87)
4.20
(2.28)
4.40
(2.32)
3.71
(2.17)
S.Em + 0.15 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.16
C.D (p=0.05) NS 0.19 0.27 0.20 0.46
C.V % 12.28 8.83 9.17 5.92 16.49
Table 13(a) : Efficacy of newer insecticides against leaf hoppers, Amrasca biguttula biguttula in cotton.
Bangalore, Karnataka Ambarish et al., 2017
DBS: Day before spraying, DAFS: Days after the first spray, DASS: Days after the second spray,
DATS: Days after the third spray Figures in parentheses indicate √ x +1 transformed values
47

Table 13(b) : Efficacy of newer insecticides against whiteflies, Bemisia tabaci in cotton
Tr. No. Treatment Dose (g. or ml ai/ha)
Number of whiteflies per leaf
1 DBS 7 DAFS 7 DASS 7 DATS Mean
1.50
(1.58)
0.37
(1.17)
0.60
(1.26)
0.40
(1.18)
0.46
(1.21)
1.47
(1.57)
0.35
(1.16)
0.50
(1.22)
0.37
(1.17)
0.41
(1.19)
1.53
(1.59)
0.77
(1.33)
0.73
(1.32)
0.73
(1.32)
0.74
(1.32)
1.83
(1.68)
0.40
(1.18)
0.57
(1.25)
0.43
(1.20)
0.47
(1.21)
2.00
(1.73)
0.67
(1.29)
0.80
(1.34)
1.20
(1.48)
0.89
(1.37)
1.67
(1.63)
0.47
(1.21)
0.70
(1.30)
0.50
(1.22)
0.56
(1.25)
T7 Pyriproxyfen 5 EC + Fenpropathrin 15 EC 37.5 + 112.5
1.43
(1.56)
0.50
(1.22)
0.73
(1.32)
0.40
(1.18))
0.54
(1.24)
T8 Pyriproxyfen 5 EC 37.5
1.57
(1.60)
0.53
(1.24)
0.67
(1.29)
0.50
(1.22)
0.57
(1.25)
T9 Fenpropathrin 15 EC 112.5
2.13
(1.77)
1.40
(1.55)
1.03
(1.43)
1.20
(1.48)
1.21
(1.49)
T10 Control Water spray
1.57
(1.60)
1.87
(1.69)
2.30
(1.82)
3.60
(2.14)
2.59
(1.89)
T11 Control Un sprayed
1.64
(1.62)
1.93
(1.71)
2.77
(1.94)
3.93
(2.22)
2.88
(1.97)
S.Em + 1.12 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06
C.D (p=0.05) 0.35 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.19
C.V % 12.77 14.81 12.41 8.95 10.89
Bangalore, Karnataka Ambarish et al., 2017
DBS: Day before spraying, DAFS: Days after the first spray, DASS: Days after the second spray,
DATS: Days after the third spray Figures in parentheses indicate √ x +1 transformed values
48

Tr. No. Insecticide
Dose
(g or ml a.i.) / ha
Av. Population of leaf hopper at
different crop stage*
(Mean of three sprays)
Percent reduction of pest over
control
1 DBS 7 DAS
T1 Spinetoram 10 + Sulfoxaflor 40 WG 120 9.91 2.11 82.12
T3
Spinetoram 12 SC 30 9.92 5.48 53.57
T4 Sulfoxaflor 24 SC 90 10.31 2.47 79.08
T5
Spinetoram 12 SC 36 9.87 5.42 54.08
T6 Sulfoxaflor 24 SC 108 9.60 2.62 77.79
T7 Pyriproxyfen 5 + Fenpropathrin 15 EC 37.5+ 112.5 9.82 2.27 80.75
T8
Pyriproxyfen 5 EC 37.5 10.06 2.52 78.65
T9 Fenpropathrin 15 EC 112.5 9.70 2.64 77.64
T10 Control (Unsprayed)
-- 10.09 11.80 --
T11 Control (Water spray)
-- 10.04 11.02 --
Table 14(a) : Efficacy of different insecticides against leaf hopper, Amrasca biguttula biguttula on cotton
Raichur, Karnataka Hanchinal et al., 2018
*- Square root transformed values; DBS – Day before spray; DAS – Days after spray 49

Tr. No. Insecticide Dose (g. or ml a.i.)/ ha
Av. Population of thrips at different
crop stage* (Mean of three sprays % reduction of pest over control
1 DBS 7 DAS
T3
Spinetoram 12 SC 30 8.36 2.44 76.37
T4 Sulfoxaflor 24 SC 90 8.18 3.94 61.91
T5
Spinetoram 12 SC 36 8.02 2.52 75.61
T6 Sulfoxaflor 24 SC 108 8.11 2.89 72.06
T7
Pyriproxyfen 5 + Fenpropathrin 15
EC
37.5+112.5 8.40 3.23 68.78
T8
Pyriproxyfen 5 EC 37.5 8.48 3.08 70.25
T9 Fenpropathrin 15 EC 112.5 7.94 2.88 72.17
T10
Control (Unsprayed) -- 8.35 10.34 --
T11
Control (Water spray) -- 8.37 11.12 --
Table 14(b) : Efficacy of different novel insecticides against thrips, Thrips tabaci on cotton
*- Square root transformed values; DBS – Day before spray; DAS – Days after spray
Raichur, Karnataka Hanchinal et al., 2018 50

Tr.
No.
Treatment
Dose
(g a.i./ha)
Mean whitefly population per 3 leaves
Overall
Mean
Reduction
over control
(%)
Yield
(kg/ha)
1st spray 2nd spray
PT 1 DAS 5 DAS 10 DAS PT 1 DAS 5 DAS 10 DAS
T1 Dinotefuran 20 SG 80
11.97
(3.53)
5.94
(2.53)
4.12
(2.14)
4.45
(2.22)
4.93
(2.33)
3.45
(1.98)
2.33
(1.68)
2.88
(1.83)
5.01 64.04 334.84
T2 Sulfoxaflor 24 SC 50
12.00
(3.53)
6.19
(2.58)
3.55
(2.01)
3.38
(1.96)
3.99
(2.11)
2.26
(1.66)
2.06
(1.60)
1.85
(1.53)
4.41 68.39 342.27
T3 Buprofezin 25 SC 200
12.45
(3.59)
9.03
(3.08)
2.48
(1.72)
1.11
(1.26)
1.56
(1.43)
1.07
(1.25)
0.83
(1.15)
0.89
(1.17)
3.67 73.67 346.92
T4 Imidacloprid 17.8 SL 50
13.50
(3.74)
6.50
(2.64)
2.99
(1.86)
1.54
(1.42)
2.17
(1.63)
1.21
(1.30)
0.81
(1.14)
0.96
(1.20)
3.71 73.40 346.67
T5 Spiromesifen 24 SC 120
12.67
(3.62)
4.78
(2.29)
1.19
(1.30)
0.71
(1.10)
1.24
(1.31)
0.50
(1.00)
0.35
(0.92)
0.48
(0.98) 2.74 80.39 361.56
T6 Clothianidin 48 WDG 50
11.80
(3.50)
6.58
(2.66)
2.44
(1.71)
1.77
(1.50)
2.32
(1.67)
1.37
(1.36)
1.00
(1.22)
1.11
(1.26)
3.55 74.60 371.25
T7 Dinotefuran 20 SG +
Buprofezin 25 SC
(20+150)
13.20
(3.70)
8.38
(2.97)
4.64
(2.26)
2.69
(1.78)
3.59
(2.02)
1.66
(1.46)
1.14
(1.28)
0.95
(1.20)
4.53 67.51 336.06
T8 Sulfoxaflor 24 SC +
Buprofezin 25 SC
(25+150)
12.61
(3.62)
6.26
(2.60)
2.94
(1.85)
1.38
(1.37)
1.78
(1.50)
1.43
(1.38)
0.40
(0.94)
0.38
(0.93)
3.39 75.73 354.25
T9 Flonicamid 50 WG 50
12.90
(3.66)
10.19
(3.26)
4.77
(2.29)
2.11
(1.61)
2.60
(1.76)
2.04
(1.59)
1.45
(1.39)
1.19
(1.30)
4.65 66.60 338.69
T10 Flonicamid 50 WG +
Buprofezin 25 SC
(25+150)
12.86
(3.65)
10.84
(3.36
3.98
(2.11)
1.14
(1.28)
1.64
(1.46)
1.31
(1.34)
0.66
(1.07)
0.60
(1.04)
4.13 70.44 342.50
T11 Flupyradifurone
200 SL
200
11.95
(3.52)
5.07
(2.36)
2.32
(1.67)
0.78
(1.13)
1.15
(1.28)
0.43
(1.96)
0.24
(0.86)
0.20
(0.83)
2.77 80.15 361.11
T12 Spiromesifen 24 SC +
Imidacloprid 17.8 SL
(60+30)
11.83
(3.51)
2.98
(1.86
1.03
(1.23)
0.48
(0.98)
0.88
(1.17)
0.45
(0.96)
0.19
(0.83)
0.11
(0.78)
2.24 83.94 379.72
T13 Control -
12.89
(3.65)
13.06
(3.68)
13.45
(3.73)
13.92
(3.79)
14.08
(3.81)
14.20
(3.83)
14.67
(3.89)
15.34
(3.97)
13.95 - 123.98
SEm ± 0.354 0.077 0.038 0.017 0.034 0.031 0.023 0.012
- -
5.011
CD at 5% - NS 0.314 0.490 0.083 0.118 0.105 0.085 0.041
- -
15.891
Table 15 : Effect of insecticides against whitefly, Bemisia tabaci in cotton (Pooled)
Values in the parentheses are “(x+0.5) transformed values; DAS = Days after spraying; PT = Pre-treatment count; NS = Not significant
Nadia, West Bengal Ghosal et al., 2018 51

Tr.
No.
Treatments
Conc.
in %
No. of thrips/ leaf days after spray Pooled
over
periods
Pooled
over
Sprays
1 3 5 7 10 15
T1
Thiamethoxam 12.6% + Lambda -
cyhalothrin 9.5% - 22.1 ZC
0.0088
1.70a
(2.39)
1.64a
(2.19)
1.30a
(1.19)
1.08a
(0.67)
0.87a
(0.26)
0.71a
(0.00)
1.22a
(0.99)
1.67a
(2.29)
T2
Profenophos 40% + Cypermethrin
4% - 44 EC
0.088
2.59b
(6.21)
2.34b
(4.98)
2.11b
(3.95)
1.89b
(3.07)
1.56b
(1.93)
1.49c
(1.72)
2.00c
(3.50)
2.42c
(5.36)
T3
Deltamethrin 1% + Triazophos
35% - 36 EC
0.045
2.51b
(5.80)
2.21b
(4.38)
2.06b
(3.74)
1.79b
(2.70)
1.50b
(1.75)
1.40c
(1.46)
1.91c
(3.15)
2.35c
(5.02)
T4
β-cyfluthrin 8.49% + Imidacloprid
19.8 % - 28.30 OD
0.010
2.44b
(5.45)
2.18b
(4.25)
2.02b
(3.58)
1.77b
(2.63)
1.46b
(1.63)
1.29c
(1.16)
1.86c
(2.96)
2.31c
(4.84)
T5
Acephate 50% +
Imidacloprid 1.8% SP
0.100
1.62a
(2.12)
1.49a
(1.72)
1.24a
(1.04)
0.94a
(0.38)
0.71a
(0.00)
0.71a
(0.00)
1.12a
(0.75)
1.59a
(2.03)
T6
Buprofezin 15% +
Acephate 35% - 50 WP
0.125
1.78a
(2.67)
1.77a
(2.63)
1.41a
(1.49)
1.19a
(0.92)
1.07a
(0.64)
0.98b
(0.46)
1.37b
(1.38)
1.78b
(2.67)
T7 Fipronil 5% SC 0.015
1.75a
(2.56)
1.69a
(2.36)
1.35a
(1.32)
1.17a
(0.87)
1.01a
(0.52)
0.83ab
(0.19)
1.30ab
(1.19)
1.73b
(2.49)
T8 Control (water spray) -
3.37c
(10.86)
3.29c
(10.32)
3.30c
(10.39)
3.23c
(9.93)
3.24c
(10.00)
3.34d
(10.66)
3.29d
(10.32)
3.39d
(10.99)
S. Em. ± - 0.15 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.04
P - - - - - - - 0.04 0.03
T x P - - - - - - - 0.11 0.08
C.V. % - 12.08 9.57 9.57 10.19 13.50 9.12 11.25 11.39
Table 16: Bio-efficacy of ready-mix insecticides against Scirtothrips dorsalis in Bt cotton
Anand, Gujarat Padaliya et al., 2018
Notes: Figures in parentheses are retransformed values of Treatment mean with letter(s) in common are non-significant by
DNMRT at 5% level of significance √ x +5 52

Tr. No. Treatment
Dosage
(g a.i /ha)
Dosage in
formulation (g
or ml/ha)
Pre treatment
population /plant
Mean mortality of whitefly
after pooling of three
round sprays (%)
5 DAS 10 DAS 15 DAS
T1
Diafenthiuron 40.5% +
Acetamiprid 3.9% WP
81 + 3.12 400 15.33
74.3
(59.9)b
70.2
(57.2)b
55.5
(48.5)bc
T2
Acetamiprid 3.9% WP
101.25 + 3.90 500 15.93
81.8
(65.2)a
76.0
(61.0)ab
67.4
(55.5)a
T3
Acetamiprid 3.9% WP
121.50 + 4.68 600 16.67
83.1
(66.1)a
77.9
(62.3)a
69.7
(56.9)a
T4 Diafenthiuron 50 WP 300 600 17.67
71.1
(57.8)b
62.2
(52.2)c
50.4
(45.5)c
T5 Acetamiprid 20 SP 20 100 16.93
73.7
(59.5)b
71.3
(57.9)b
60.5
(51.4)b
T6 Imidacloprid 17.8 SL 22.25 150 16.73
65.4
(54.3)c
57.4
(49.6)c
44.2
(42.0)c
T7 Untreated control - - 15.87
0.0
(4.1)d
0.0
(4.1)d
0.0
(4.1)d
S Em(±) 1.3 1.4 1.2
LSD (0.05) 3.9 4.2 3.7
CV (%) 0.6 0.7 0.7
Similar alphabets represents the homogeneous means group due to Duncan’s Multiple Range Test
* Values in the parentheses are angular transformed, DAS: Days after spray
Table 17(a) : Efficacy of insecticide against whitefly in cotton.
Nadia, West Bengal Bala et al., 2018 53

Tr. No. Treatment
Dosage
(g a.i /ha)
Dosage in
formulation (g or
ml/ha)
Pre treatment
population /plant
Mean mortality of thrips
after pooling of three
round sprays (%)
5 DAS 10 DAS 15 DAS
T1
Acetamiprid 3.9% WP
81 + 3.12 400 15.33
81.4
(64.8)b
68.8
(56.4)ab
62.7
(52.7)ab
T2
Acetamiprid 3.9% WP
101.25 + 3.90 500 15.93
86.6
(69.0)ab
73.8
(59.5)ab
66.8
(55.1)a
T3
Acetamiprid 3.9% WP
121.50 +
4.68
600 16.67
89.2
(71.3)a
77.3
(61.9)a
71.6
(58.1)a
T4 Diafenthiuron 50 WP 300 600 17.67
70.9
(57.7)c
59.0
(50.5)bc
47.8
(44.1)bc
78.1
(62.4)b
65.4
(54.3)b
65.4
(49.3)b
69.9
(57.1)c
54.7
(48.0)c
40.9
(40.0)c
T7 Untreated control - - 15.87
0.00
(4.1)d
0.00
(4.1)d
0.0
(4.1)d
S Em(±) 1.4 2.0 1.8
LSD (0.05) 4.5 6.0 5.4
CV (%) 0.6 1.0 1.0
Similar alphabets represents the homogeneous means group due to Duncan’s Multiple Range Test
* Values in the parentheses are angular transformed, DAS: Days after spray
Table 17(b): Efficacy of insecticide against thrips in cotton.

Table 18(a) : Bio-efficacy of different insecticides against aphids, Aphis gossypii in Bt cotton
Tr. No. Treatment
No. of aphids/leaf (days after spray)
Before spray 5 10 15 Pooled
T1 Diafenthiuron 25 + Pyriproxyfen 5 SE @ 500 ml/ha
3.79
(13.86)
2.60
(6.26)
2.92
(8.03)
3.09
(9.05)
2.87
(7.74)
3.77
(13.71)
2.62
(6.36)
2.94
(8.14)
3.10
(9.11)
2.88
(7.79)
3.75
(13.56)
2.03
(3.62)
2.30
(4.79)
2.49
(5.70)
2.27
(4.65)
3.72
(13.34)
1.95
(3.30)
2.24
(4.52)
2.44
(5.45)
2.21
(4.38)
T5 Diafenthiuron 50 WP @ 600 g/ha
3.91
(14.79)
2.44
(5.45)
2.74
(7.01)
2.92
(8.03)
2.70
(6.79)
T6 Pyriproxyfen 10 EC @ 1000 ml/ha
3.89
(14.63)
2.70
(6.79)
2.98
(8.38)
3.21
(9.80)
2.97
(8.32)
T7 Pyriproxyfen 10 @ 1000 ml/ha(market sample)
3.90
(14.71)
2.76
(7.12)
3.02
(8.62)
3.23
(9.93)
3.00
(8.50)
3.96
(15.18)
3.07
(8.92)
3.34
(10.66)
3.54
(12.03)
3.31
(10.5)
ANOVA
Treatment (T)
C. V.%
S. Em.
±
CD
(5%)
S. Em.
±
CD
(5%)
S. Em.
±.
CD
(5%)
S. Em.
±
CD
(5%)
S.Em.
±.
CD
(5%)
0.09 NS 0.06 0.17 0.06 0.16 0.06 0.16 0.04 0.10
11.15 9.89 8.32 7.99
Anand, Gujarat Thumar et al., 2018
Note: Figures in parentheses are retransformed values; these outside are transformed values √ x +5 55

Table 18(b) : Bio-efficacy of different insecticides against jassids Amrasca biguttula biguttula in Bt cotton
Tr. No. Treatment
No. of jassids/leaf (days after spray)
Before
spray
5 10 15 Pooled
T1 Diafenthiuron 25 + Pyriproxyfen 5 SE@ 500 ml/ha
4.04
(15.82)
2.77
(7.17)
3.11
(9.17)
3.33
(10.59)
3.07
(8.92)
4.09
(16.23)
2.80
(7.34)
3.12
(9.23)
3.34
(10.66)
3.09
(9.05)
4.10
(16.31)
2.23
(4.47)
2.47
(5.60)
2.70
(6.79)
2.47
(5.60)
4.08
(16.15)
2.16
(4.17)
2.39
(5.21)
2.63
(6.42)
2.39
(5.21)
T5 Diafenthiuron 50 WP@ 600 g/ha
4.15
(16.72)
2.66
(6.58)
2.92
(8.03)
3.16
(9.49)
2.91
(7.97)
T6 Pyriproxyfen 10 EC (GSP sample) @ 1000 ml/ha
4.15
(16.72)
2.89
(7.85)
3.16
(9.49)
3.40
(11.06)
3.15
(9.42)
T7 Pyriproxyfen 10 @ 1000 ml/ha(market sample)
4.10
(16.31)
2.92
(8.03)
3.20
(9.74)
3.42
(11.20)
3.18
(9.61)
4.19
(17.06)
3.27
(10.19)
3.54
(12.03)
3.69
(13.12)
3.50
(11.75)
ANOVA
Treatment (T)
C. V.%
S. Em.
±
CD
(5%)
S. Em.
±
CD
(5%)
S. Em.
±.
CD
(5%)
S. Em.
±
CD
(5%)
S. Em.
±.
CD
(5%)
0.11 NS 0.06 0.16 0.06 0.17 0.06 0.17 004 0.11
12.86 9.03 8.61 8.05 9.77
Anand, Gujarat Thumar et al., 2018
Note: Figures in parentheses are retransformed values; these outside are transformed values √ x +5 56

Tr. No. Treatment
Dosage
(g a.i /ha)
Dosage in
formulation
(g or ml /ha)
Pre treatment
population/ 3
leaves
after 1st round sprays (%)
after 2snd round sprays (%)
3 DAS 7 DAS 10 DAS 3 DAS 7 DAS 10 DAS
T1
Acetamiprid 3.9% WP
81 + 3.12 400 13.33
71.83
(58.27)*
64.77
(53.89)
50.66
(45.67)
74.39
(59.93)
65.17
(54.13)
54.06
(47.62)
T2
Acetamiprid 3.9% WP
101.25 + 3.90 500
12.00 77.21
(61.83)
69.13
(56.56)
57.56
(49.64)
77.32
(61.90)
65.93
(54.59)
59.98
(51.05)
T3
Acetamiprid 3.9% WP
121.50 +
4.68
600 12.67 79.61
(63.51)
72.78
(58.87)
63.13
(52.91)
81.14
(64.63)
74.51
(60.00)
67.02
(55.25)
69.89
(57.03)
65.03
(54.05)
51.45
(46.12)
70.85
(57.64)
64.20
(53.55)
56.73
(49.16)
T5 Diafenthiuron 50 WP 360 600 11.67 71.77
(58.22)
61.37
(51.87)
46.37
(43.21)
73.24
(59.17)
61.96
(52.21)
49.91
(45.24)
58.73
(50.32)
49.72
(45.13)
42.29
(40.86)
54.63
(47.95)
45.11
(42.48)
40.71
(39.94)
T7 Untreated control - - 12.33 0.00
(4.05)
0.00
(4.05)
0.00
(4.05)
0.00
(4.05)
0.00
(4.05)
0.00
(4.05)
S Em(±) 1.29 1.34 1.82 1.32 1.32 1.07
CD (0.05) 3.98 4.13 5.59 4.07 4.06 3.31
CV (%) 1.60 0.71 1.11 0.60 0.71 0.63
*Values in the parentheses are angular transformed, DAS: Days after spray
Table 19(a) : Management whitefly by using of different insecticides in Bt-cotton.

Tr. No. Treatment
Dosage
(g a.i /ha)
Dosage in
formulation (g or
ml /ha)
Pre treatment
population/ 3
leaves
after 1st round sprays (%)
after 2snd round sprays (%)
3 DAS 7 DAS 10 DAS 3 DAS 7 DAS 10 DAS
T1
Acetamiprid 3.9% WP
81 + 3.12 400 16.44
80.91
(64.46)*
66.12
(54.71)
59.33
(50.70)
80.08
(63.85)
68.54
(56.19)
64.49
(53.72)
T2
Acetamiprid 3.9% WP
101.25 + 3.90 500 15.33
85.44
(67.98)
72.30
(58.56)
62.57
(52.59)
85.85
(68.32)
73.41
(59.29)
71.32
(57.94)
T3
Acetamiprid 3.9% WP
121.50 +
4.68
600 16.40 89.27
(71.35)
77.61
(62.11)
70.15
(57.06)
87.66
(69.87)
76.50
(61.34)
75.65
(60.77)
77.77
(62.21)
60.49
(51.35)
54.00
(47.58)
77.58
(62.08)
70.64
(57.50)
58.53
(50.20)
T5 Diafenthiuron 50 WP 360 600 15.20 70.58
(57.47)
59.05
(50.51)
49.80
(45.20)
66.68
(55.05)
60.29
(51.23)
43.64
(41.63)
67.36
(55.46)
52.12
(46.50)
39.63
(39.26)
65.97
(54.61)
58.85
(50.39)
42.22
(40.81)
T7 Untreated control - - 16.93 0.00
(4.05)
0.00
(4.05)
0.00
(4.05)
0.00
(4.05)
0.00
(4.05)
0.00
(4.05)
S Em(±) 1.22 1.74 2.10 1.10 2.57 1.50
CD (0.05) 3.74 5.07 6.47 3.38 7.90 4.63
CV (%) 0.52 0.90 1.21 0.47 1.30 0.84
*Values in the parentheses are angular transformed, DAS: Days after spray
Table 19(b) : Management thrips by using of different insecticides in Bt-cotton.

Ready mix insecticide Insect pest References
Spirotetramat 12% + imidacloprid 36% - 480 SC Aphid, jassids, thrips and whiteflies Patel et al.,2010
Flubendiamide +Thiacloprid 480 SC Bollworms, aphids, whitefly and leaf hopper Kumar et al., 2010
Cypermethrin 10% + Indoxacarb 10% SC Bollworm complex Surpam et al., 2015
Spinetoram 10% + Sulfoxaflor 30% WG Whiteflies and leaf hoppers Ambarish et al., 2017
Spinetoram 10% + Sulfoxaflor 40% WG American bollworm, pink bollworm, leaf hopper and thrips Hanchinal et al., 2018
Indoxacarb 14.5 % + Acetamiprid 7.7 % SC Bollworm complex Borude et al., 2018
Chlorantraniliprole 8.8 % + Thiamethoxam 17.5 % SC Bollworm complex Rambhau et al., 2018
Acetamiprid 0.4% + Quinalphos 20 % EC American bollworm and spotted boll worm Bhamare et al.., 2018
Spiromesifen 24 SC + Imidacloprid 17.8 SL whitefly Ghosal et al., 2018
Acephate 50% + Imidacloprid 1.8% SP Thrips Padaliya et al., 2018
Diafenthiuron 25% + pyriproxyfen 5% SE Aphids, jassids, whiteflies and thrips Thumar et al., 2018
Diafenthiuron 40.5% + Acetamiprid 3.9% WP Whitefly and thrips Bala et al., 2020
Table 20: Ready mix insecticides effective against insect pests of cotton
59

60
Efficacy of ready mix insecticides on
natural enemies

Table 21(a) : Effect of insecticides on population of natural enemies (lady bird beetle) in cotton ecosystem
Tr. No. Treatment Dose ml /L
Average population of ladybird beetles (No / plant) at
7DAS 14DAS Mean
T1
Pyriproxifen 5 % +
Fenpropathrin 15 % EC
1 ml
0.56
(0.74)
1.07
(1.03)
0.81
(0.88)
T2
Cypermethrin 3 % +
Quinalphos 20 % EC
2 ml
0.53
(0.68)
1.13
(1.06)
0.83
(0.87)
T3
Novaluron 5.25 % +
Indoxacarb 4.5% SC
1.75 ml
0.62
(0.78)
0.91
(0.92)
0.77
(0.85)
T4
Lambda cyhalothrin 9.5 % ZC
0.4 ml
0.40
(0.60)
1.20
(1.09)
0.80
(0.85)
T5
Indoxacarb 14.5 % +
1 ml
0.60
(0.77)
1.07
(1.03)
0.83
(0.90)
T6
Profenofos 40 % +
Cypermethrin 4 % EC
2
0.59
(0.69)
1.04
(1.98)
0.82
(0.84)
2.02
(1.40)
2.80
(1.66)
2.41
(1.53)
SE (m) ± 0.16 0.15 0.16
CD at 5 % NS NS NS

Table 21(b) : Effect of insecticides on population of natural enemies (Chrysopa) in cotton ecosystem
Tr. No.
Treatment
Dose ml /L
Average population of chrysopa (No / plant) at
7DAS 14DAS Mean
T1
Pyriproxifen 5 % +
Fenpropathrin 15 % EC 1 ml
0.18
(0.81)
0.31
(0.89)
0.24
(0.85)
T2
Cypermethrin 3 % +
Quinalphos 20 % EC 2 ml
0.07
(0.75)
0.20
(0.83)
0.13
(0.79)
T3
Novaluron 5.25 % +
Indoxacarb 4.5% SC 1.75 ml
0.29
(0.88)
0.36
(0.91)
0.32
(0.90)
T4
Lambda cyhalothrin 9.5 % ZC 0.4 ml
0.13
(0.79)
0.18
(0.82)
0.16
(0.80)
T5
Indoxacarb 14.5 % +
Acetamiprid 7.7 % SC 1 ml
0.22
(0.83)
0.29
(0.88)
0.26
(0.86)
T6
Profenofos 40 % +
Cypermethrin 4 % EC
2
0.00
(0.71)
0.11
(0.78)
0.06
(0.74)
0.73
(1.11)
0.69
(1.08)
0.71
(1.10)
SE (m) ± 0.08 0.29 0.19
CD at 5 % NS NS NS

Table 21(c) : Effect of insecticides on population of natural enemies (spiders) in cotton ecosystem
Tr. No.
Treatment
Dose ml /L
Average population of spiders (No / plant) at
7DAS 14DAS Mean
T1
Pyriproxifen 5 % +
Fenpropathrin 15 % EC 1 ml
0.00
(0.71)
0.16
(0.81)
0.08
(0.76)
T2
Cypermethrin 3 % +
Quinalphos 20 % EC 2 ml
0.11
(0.78)
0.22
(0.85)
0.17
(0.81)
T3
Novaluron 5.25 % +
Indoxacarb 4.5% SC 1.75 ml
0.22
(0.84)
0.29
(0.88)
0.26
(0.86)
T4
Lambda cyhalothrin 9.5 % ZC 0.4 ml
0.20
(0.83)
0.27
(0.87)
0.23
(0.85)
T5
Indoxacarb 14.5 % +
Acetamiprid 7.7 % SC 1 ml
0.13
(0.79)
0.31
(0.89)
0.22
(0.84)
T6
Profenofos 40 % +
Cypermethrin 4 % EC
2
0.16
(0.80)
0.33
(0.90)
0.24
(0.85)
0.64
(1.07)
0.73
(1.11)
0.69
(1.09)
SE (m) ± 0.08 0.07 0.07
CD at 5 % NS NS NS

Tr. No. Treatment
Dose
(g a.i./ha)
Mean no. of coccinelid complex per plant
(mean of two sprays)
PT 1 DAS 5 DAS 10 DAS
2.06
(1.60)
1.33
(1.35)
1.48
(1.40)
1.54
(1.42)
1.86
(1.53)
1.30
(1.34)
1.49
(1.41)
1.55
(1.43)
2.09
(1.60)
1.56
(1.43)
1.71
(1.48)
1.82
(1.52)
1.91
(1.55)
1.21
(1.30)
1.29
(1.33)
1.37
(1.36)
2.04
(1.59)
1.80
(1.51)
1.93
(1.55)
1.98
(1.57)
2.11
(1.61)
1.27
(1.33)
1.37
(1.36)
1.42
(1.38)
T7
Dinotefuran 20 SG +
Buprofezin 25 SC
(20+150)
1.99
(1.57)
1.62
(1.45)
1.68
(1.47)
1.73
(1.49)
T8
Sulfoxaflor 24 SC +
Buprofezin 25 SC
(25+150)
1.80
(1.51)
1.33
(1.35)
1.44
(1.39)
1.55
(1.43)
2.01
(1.58)
1.81
(1.51)
1.94
(1.56)
1.99
(1.57)
T10
Flonicamid 50 WG +
Buprofezin 25 SC
(25+150)
2.10
(1.61)
1.61
(1.45)
1.80
(1.51)
1.87
(1.53)
T11
Flupyradifurone
200 SL
200
1.91
(1.55)
1.61
(1.45)
1.68
(1.47)
1.76
(1.50)
T12
Spiromesifen 24 SC +
(60+30)
1.97
(1.57)
1.50
(1.41)
1.68
(1.47)
1.73
(1.49)
T13 Control -
2.07
(1.60)
2.11
(1.61)
2.18
(1.63)
2.23
(1.65)
SEm ± - 0.099 0.083 0.090 0.096
CD at 5% - NS 0.289 NS NS
Table 22(a) : Effect of insecticides on non target organisms in cotton (Pooled)
Nadia, West Bengal Ghosal et al., 2018
Values in the parentheses are “(x+0.5) transformed values; NS = Not significant; DAS = Days after spraying;
PT = Pre-treatment count 64

Tr. No. Treatment
Dose
(g a.i./ha)
Mean no. of spider complex per plant
(mean of two sprays)
PT 1 DAS 5 DAS 10 DAS
2.06
(1.6)
1.56
(1.43)
1.62
(1.45)
1.69
(1.47)
2.14
(1.62)
1.63
(1.45)
1.74
(1.49)
1.77
(1.50)
2.08
(1.60)
1.83
(1.52)
1.89
(1.54)
1.93
(1.55)
2.02
(1.58)
1.37
(1.36)
1.42
(1.38)
1.50
(1.41)
2.22
(1.64)
1.97
(1.57)
2.03
(1.59)
2.07
(1.60)
2.11
(1.61)
1.43
(1.38)
1.49
(1.41)
1.54
(1.42)
T7
Dinotefuran 20 SG +
Buprofezin 25 SC
(20+150)
2.01
(1.58)
1.62
(1.45)
1.67
(1.47)
1.71
(1.48)
T8
Sulfoxaflor 24 SC +
Buprofezin 25 SC
(25+150)
2.01
(1.58)
1.70
(1.48)
1.76
(1.50)
1.79
(1.51)
2.16
(1.63)
1.98
(1.57)
2.08
(1.60)
2.12
(1.61)
T10
Flonicamid 50 WG +
Buprofezin 25 SC
(25+150)
2.19
(1.64)
2.01
(1.58)
2.04
(1.59)
2.07
(1.60)
T11
Flupyradifurone
200 SL
200
2.24
(1.65)
1.91
(1.55)
2.00
(1.58)
2.03
(1.59)
T12
Spiromesifen 24 SC +
(60+30)
2.10
(1.61)
1.78
(1.50)
1.87
(1.53)
1.92
(1.55)
T13 Control -
2.15
(1.62)
2.17
(1.63)
2.32
(1.67)
2.38
(1.69)
SEm ± - 0.097 0.084 0.088 0.092
CD at 5% - NS 0.264 NS NS
Table 22(b) : Effect of insecticides on non target organisms in cotton (Pooled)
Nadia, West Bengal Ghosal et al., 2018
Values in the parentheses are “(x+0.5) transformed values; NS = Not significant; DAS = Days after spraying; PT = Pre-treatment count 65

66
Advantages of Pesticide Mixture

Broad spectrum of activity
Control more than one pest or pest species
Synergistic joint action with high efficacy
Lower quantity as well as cost
Saving time
Less number of spray
Help in insecticide resistant management
67

68
Disadvantages of Pesticide Mixture

Incompatibility with mixture lead to
crystal and flake development
Some mixture may cause plant injury
Antagonism effect of mixture reduced
the efficacy of mixture
69

Guidelines for evaluating pesticide mixtures
→ Pest population to be controlled should be susceptible to each
used in mixture.
→ Target pest should exhibit no cross resistance to mixture.
→ Mixture should have significant potential effect to reduce the
dosage.
→ Mixture should have no mammalian toxicity.
70

71
Conclusion
 Due to repetitive use of single insecticide for particular pest management lead to
the development of insecticide resistance and pest resurgence, so prevention of
that we need to go for insecticide mixture which have two different insecticides
with different mode of action.
 To overcome the cost of application, number of application and to draw a
sustainable pest management programme we need to search better alternative,
ready mix insecticide are one of them.
71

72
Insecticides mixture which are effective against Bollworm complex
(Based on study)
1. Flubendiamide + Thiacloprid 480 SC @ 120 g a.i/ha,
2. Cypermethrin 10% + Indoxacarb 10% SC @ 200 + 200 g a.i./ha,
3. Chlorantraniliprole 8.8% + Thiamethoxam 17.5% SC @ 150 g a.i./ha,
4. Acetamiprid 0.4% + Quinalphos 20 % EC @ 40 + 2000 g a.i./ha,
5. Spinetoram 10%+ Sulfoxaflor 40%WG @ 140 g.a.i/ha,
6. Indoxacarb 14.5 % + Acetamiprid 7.7 % SC
72

73
Insecticides mixture which are effective against sucking pests
(Based on study)
73
1.
Spirotetramat 12% + Imidacloprid 36% -
480 SC @ 625 ml/ha
6.
Spiromesifen 24 SC + Imidacloprid 17.8 SL @
60+30 g a.i./ha
2.
Flubendiamide + Thiacloprid 480 SC @ 120
g a.i/ha
7.
Acephate 50% + Imidacloprid 1.8% - 51.8 SP @
0.1 %
3.
Cypermethrin 10 % + Indoxacarb 10 % SC
@ 200 + 200 g a.i./ha
8.
Diafenthiuron 40.5% + acetamiprid 3.9% WP @
600 g/ha
4.
Spinetoram 10% w/w + Sulfoxaflor 30%
w/w WG @ 140 g a.i./ha
9.
Diafenthiuron 25 + Pyriproxyfen 5 SE@ 1250
ml/ha
5. Spinetoram 10%+ Sulfoxaflor 40%WG @ 140 g.a.i/ha

Future thrust
 Need not divert attention from the implementation of alternative pest
management strategies.
 The concept of mixtures may be extended to botanicals and other
insect growth regulators for effective pest management.
 Need to test different combinations of insecticides for its resistance and
persistency.
 Need to monitor residue levels of ready-mix insecticides in different
crops.
 Need to develop antidotes for ready mix insecticides.
74

Impact of Ready-mix insecticides on insect pests of cotton seminar

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Impact of Ready-mix insecticides on insect pests of cotton seminar

Similar to Impact of Ready-mix insecticides on insect pests of cotton seminar (20)

More from Gaurang Rudani

More from Gaurang Rudani (10)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Impact of Ready-mix insecticides on insect pests of cotton seminar