The experiment was carried out under open field condition in farmers’ field at Beekanahalli of Chikkamagaluru taluk during early summer 2014-15. The bio-efficacy of selected insecticides against whitefly was assessed by raising the tomato crop in farmers’ field. The results showed that, thiamethoxam 25 % WG was effective in reducing whitefly population at one, five, seven and ten DAS followed by cyantraniliprole 10% OD at one and five DAS and triazophos 40% EC at seven and ten DAS during the first spray. But during second spray similar trend was not seen where, cyantraniliprole 10% OD was effective at one, five and ten DAS followed by imidacloprid 17.8% SL at five, seven and ten DAS and triazophos 40% EC at one, seven and ten DAS.

1. BIO-EFFICACY OF SELECTED INSECTICIDES AGAINST ADULT
WHITEFLY, TRIALEURODES VAPORARIORUM (WESTWOOD) UNDER
FIELD CONDITION OF CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK.
U. S. Sachin, M. H. Suchithra Kumari and Sowmya Kumari
Department of Entomology, College of Horticulture,University of Horticultural Sciences, Bagalkot - 587 104, India.
(Accepted 14 April 2016)
ABSTRACT:Theexperimentwascarriedoutunderopenfieldconditioninfarmers’fieldatBeekanahalliofChikkamagaluru
taluk during early summer 2014-15. The bio-efficacy of selected insecticides against whitefly was assessed by raising the
tomato crop in farmers’ field.The results showed that, thiamethoxam 25 % WG was effective in reducing whitefly population
atone,five,sevenandtenDASfollowedbycyantraniliprole10%ODatoneandfiveDASandtriazophos40%ECatsevenand
ten DAS during the first spray. But during second spray similar trend was not seen where, cyantraniliprole 10% OD was
effective atone,fiveandtenDASfollowedbyimidacloprid17.8%SLatfive,sevenandtenDASandtriazophos40%ECatone,
seven and ten DAS.
Key words : Whitefly, Trialeurodes vaporariorum, bio-efficacy, insecticides.
INTRODUCTION
Solanaceous crops are important group of warm
season vegetables consumed all over the world and grown
in tropical and subtropical regions. Tomato (Solanum
lycopersicum L.) being one of the most popular vegetable
grown all over the world. Tomato has wider coverage in
India compared to other vegetables with an area of 5.60
lakh hectares and production of 8.08 lakh metric tonnes
(Vanitha et al, 2013). The tomato plant is attacked by a
number of insects, mites and other non-insect pests, which
reduce yield and spoil the quality of tomato fruits.Among
these Trialeurodes vaporariorum, a sap feeder reported
to be infesting approximately 859 host plant species,
belonging to 469 genera in 121 families has attained a
major pest status globally (Annon, 2015). T.
vaporariorum cause damage in three ways viz., the
vitality of the plants is lowered through the loss of cell
sap; normal photosynthesis is interfered due to the growth
of sooty mould on the honey dew and act as vector of
viruses (Johnson et al, 1992). Thus, it not only sucks the
plantsapwhilefeeding,butalsotransmitsalimitednumber
of Crinivirus and Torradovirus. The criniviruses cause
Tomato Infectious Chlorosis Virus (TICV) and Tomato
Chlorosis Virus (ToCV) in tomato (Wisler et al, 1998;
Jones, 2003; Castillo et al, 2011 and Cavalieri et al, 2014).
Although, several management strategies are
available to suppress the pests on crops, efficacy, spread
and cost of operations are not satisfactory in comparison
with chemical control measures. The use of insecticides
is the primary strategy employed to control whiteflies, T.
vaporariorum in tomato. Any delay in application of
pesticides in tomato ecosystem results in heavy crop
losses (Singh et al, 2009).. This has been particularly
evident during the past decade where whiteflies have
shown the potential to cause millions of dollars in crop
damage and lost yields. Considering the heavy loss by
this pest, a number of insecticides have been
recommended for its effective control. This pest attains
exponential number within a short time and needs repeated
application of insecticides for successful cultivation of
tomato (Singh et al, 2009). Several new classes of
insecticide chemistry viz., neonicotinoids, insect growth
regulators and new diamide group have been developed
recently that effectively control whitefly population. In
view of the whitefly adult’s ability to move onto tomato
crops during the growing season and spread the viruses,
it is often desirable for growers to apply products capable
of suppressing adults also (Palumbo, 2008).
High humidity and temperature during summer in
Chikkamagaluru favors multiplication of whiteflies and
infectious chlorosis disease. Due to decreased
susceptibility of whitefly against older insecticides, there
is a need to identify effective and safer new insecticides
for management of whiteflies in tomato. Considering this,
the insecticides were tested for their efficacy against adult
whitefly under field conditions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The experiment was carried out under open field
condition in farmers’ field at Beekanahalli of
Chikkamagaluru taluk during early summer 2014-15. The
J. Exp. Zool. India Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 1069-1075, 2016 www.connectjournals.com/jez ISSN 0972-0030

2. 1070 U. S. Sachin et al
seeds of commonly used tomato hybrid NS 501 were
sown on protrays in low cost polyhouse and 25 days old
seedlings were transplanted in every plot (5×5 m) of main
field with spacing of 90 cm × 45 cm. Recommended
package of practices was followed excluding insecticide
application. However, the selected ten insecticides were
sprayed on tomato plants along with one untreated control
that added to eleven treatments (Table 1) and was
replicated thrice.
The experiment was laid out by following RCBD. In
every replication, one day before imposing treatments,
initial count of T. vaporariorum adults was made from
top three leaves of every randomly selected five plants.
The density of T. vaporariorum adults were estimated
per leaf in every replication. Similar observations were
made after one, five, seven and ten days after imposing
treatments. A second spray was taken 15 days after first
spray. The density of T. vaporariorum adults were
recorded before and one, five, seven & ten days after
application of the treatments.
The curling of leaves due to whitefly infestation was
also recorded by counting number of curled leaves out of
total number of leaves per plant from five randomly
selected tomato plants. Thus, the per cent curling of
tomato leaves in every treatment was calculated as,
Number of curled leaves
Percentleafcurl=———————————————× 100
Total number of leaves observed
RESULTS
There was no significant difference among the
treatments with respect to number of adult whitefly per
leaf before imposition of the treatments during the first
spray. The mean population varied from 14.68 to 18.69
per leaf (Table 1).
At one day after treatment, there was significant
reduction in whitefly population. The mean population of
adult whiteflies per leaf varied from 2.13 to 13.70.Among
the treatments, T3
(2.13) showed least number of adult
whiteflies per leaf which was on par with T6
(3.24), T5
(3.64), T1
(4.06) and T4
(4.08) per leaf. Further, T9
(7.62)
recorded a higher population of whitefly adults per leaf
followed by T8
(6.06), T7
(5.52) and T2
(5.49). However,
untreated control, T11
(13.70) recorded significantly
highest population of whitefly adults per leaf (Table 1).
There was a significant difference among the
treatments with respect to number of adult whiteflies per
leaf at five days after imposing the treatments. The mean
population of adult whiteflies per leaf varied from 0.94 to
11.40.Among the different treatments, T5
(0.94) recorded
lowest population of whitefly adults per leaf. The next
best treatments were T3
(1.34), T4
(1.39) and T1
(1.45),
and were statistically on par with each other. A higher
whitefly adult population was observed in T6
(4.37) and
was followed by T8
(4.17), T7
(3.82), T9
(3.48), T10
(2.86)
and T2
(1.79). However, untreated control, T11
(11.40)
recorded significantly highest population of whitefly adults
per leaf (Table 1).
Even at seven days after treatments, significant
difference was observed among the treatments with
respect to number of whitefly adults per leaf. The mean
whitefly adult population per leaf varied from 0.90 to
11.50. Among the treatments, T3
(0.90) recorded lowest
population of whitefly adults per leaf followed by T2
(0.94)
which was on par with T1
(1.05) and T4
(1.58). Further, a
higher population of whitefly adults were recorded in T6
(4.94) followed by T8
(4.40), T7
(4.11), T9
(4.03), T10
(2.52)
and T5
(1.71). However, in untreated control, T11
(11.50)
the population of whitefly adults was significantly higher
than rest of the treatments (Table 1).
At ten days after treatment, significant difference
was observed among the treatments with respect to adult
whitefly population. The mean population of adult
whiteflies varied from 0.89 to 7.37. Among the
treatments, T3
and T2
(0.89) recorded lowest population
of whitefly adults per leaf which was on par with
treatments T5
(1.05), T10
(1.26), T4
(1.35) and T1
(1.45).
Further, lower adult whitefly population was recorded in
T9
(2.19), T8
(2.35), T6
(2.54) and T7
(2.70). However,
untreated control, T11
(7.37) recorded significantly highest
population of whitefly adult per leaf (Table 1).
Similarly, during the second spray, significant
difference was not observed among the treatments with
respect to number of whitefly adults per leaf before
imposition of the treatments although the mean population
varied from 5.93 to 8.08 (Table 2).
There was significant difference among all the
treatments at one, five, seven and ten days after second
spray. The mean population varied from 0.93 to 6.10,
1.17 to 7.26, 0.97 to 6.59 and 2.34 to 7.28 at one, five,
seven and ten days after second spray, respectively. At
one day after treatment, T4
and T6
(0.93) recorded lowest
population of whitefly adults per leaf. Further, the next
higher population was recorded in T5
(1.02), T2
(1.16), T7
(1.33) and T3
and T10
(1.37 each) and were on par with
each other but lower than T1
(1.66), T8
(1.76) and T9
(2.25). However, untreated control, T11
(6.10) recorded
highest population of whitefly adults per leaf (Table 2).
At five days after treatment, T5
(1.17) recorded
lowest population of adults per leaf and it was on par
with the treatments, T10
(1.36), T1
(1.38), T3
(1.56), T4

3. Bio-efficacy of selected insecticides against adult whitefly 1071
and T7
(1.67 each). Further, a higher population was
recorded in T8
(1.92), T6
(1.90), T2
(1.86) and T9
(1.80).
However, in untreated control, T11
(7.26) highest
population of whitefly adults per leaf was recorded than
other treatments (Table 2).
At seven days after treatment, T1
(0.97) recorded
lowest population of adults per leaf which was on par
with T2
(1.02), T3
(1.04), T5
(1.20), T4
(1.31), T6
(1.56)
and T10
(1.58). However, untreated control (6.59)
recorded highest population of whitefly adults per leaf
over other treatments (Table 2).
At ten days after treatment, the population of adults
showed slight increase in the population. Among the
different treatments, T5
(2.34) recorded lowest population
of whitefly adults per leaf which was on par with T1
(2.77), T2
(3.08), T10
(3.17), T8
(3.37) and T6
(3.42).
However, untreated control, T11
(7.28) recorded highest
population of whitefly adults per leaf over the treatments
(Table 2).
Per cent leaf curl
Per cent leaf curl was measured at the end of last
reading i.e.10 days after second spray. There was
significant difference among the treatments with respect
to per cent leaf curl caused by whitefly. The mean per
cent leaf curl ranged between 11.37 and 41.12. Among
the treatments, T5
(11.37) recorded lowest per cent leaf
curl, followed by T3
(13.95), T2
(16.53), T1
(17.71). Higher
per cent leaf curl was observed in the treatment T10
(18.75)
and T6
(19.31) which were on par with each other. Further,
T9
(20.58) and T8
(20.70) recorded next highest per cent
leaf curl and were on par with each other. The per cent
leaf curl was significantly higher in T7
(21.76) and T4
(26.11) over all treatments. Untreated control, T11
(41.12)
recorded highest per cent leaf curl than rest of the
treatments (Table 3).
DISCUSSION
The pre-treatment sampling indicated that population
of whitefly was high and uniform in all treatment plots.
There was no significance difference in their densities
before spray while, after chemical applications, the
treatmentssignificantlydifferedduringthewholesampling
period. The number of adult whitefly sharply decreased
in all treatments (including untreated control plot) after
application of different treatments. The population of
whitefly was significantly lower in all chemical treated
plots compared to the untreated control plot at different
day’s interval.
Treatment T1
, recorded a mean adult population of
15.68 before first spray and sharply decreased to 4.06,
1.45, 1.05 and 1.45 adults at one, five, seven, ten days
after first spray, respectively (Table 1). While, the adult
whitefly population drastically reduced to 1.66, 1.38, 0.97
and 2.77 adults from 5.93 adults (before spray) at one,
five, seven, ten days after second spray, respectively
(Table 2). This finding was in contrast to the findings of
Amjad et al (2009); Ghosal and Chatterjee (2013) and
Zanic et al (2008) who reported that confidor
(Imidacloprid) gave effective control of whitefly
population, Bemisia tabaci on cotton crop. While,
Nadeem et al (2011) reported that confidor proved to be
the intermediate insecticide for the control of whitefly.
In treatment T2
, adult whitefly population drastically
reduced to 0.89 adults at ten days after first spray from
14.80 adults (before spray) (Table 1). Similar trend was
seen after second spray with a slight increase in adults
at tenth day after spray (3.08 adults) (Table 2). Triazophos
was effective in reducing the adult whitefly population
up to seventh day after spray during first and second
spray. This is in accordance with Ranjeet et al. (2015)
who reported that among the tested insecticides against
whitefly, B. tabaci. under field conditions infesting Bt
cotton, maximum per cent reduction was observed with
trizophos 40 EC (63.22%) against whitefly while others
were found to be less effective.
Similarly in T3
treatment, adult population of 18.69
adults (before spray) reduced to 0.89 adults at tenth day
after first spray (Table 1) and to 1.04 (7 DAS) from 7.38
adults (before spray) during the second spray (Table 2).
The results are in agreement with Scotta et al (2005)
who reported that application of thiamethoxam on tomato
produced a reduction in the number of T. vaporariorum
adults from 36 to 97 per cent between three and 14 days
after treatment. Afzal et al (2014) also reported that
application of thiamethoxam against whitefly, B. tabaci
resulted in mortality of 79.02% and 85.35% after first
and second spray, respectively at three days after
application due to its increased efficacy.
The treatment T4
, that recorded an adult population
of 15.68 before spray, drastically reduced to 4.08 at one
DAS. Then it gradually reduced to 1.39 at five DAS which
slightly increased to 1.58 and then reduced to 1.35 adults
at seven and ten days after first spray, respectively (Table
1). Similar trend was seen during second spray at the
beginning (1 and 3 DAS) with slight change in adult
whitefly population at 5 DAS and seven DAS (Table 2).
This may be attributed to the fact that natural enemies
might have played a role apart from mortality due to the
chemical. These observations were accordance with
Omer (1992) who reported that, T. vaporariorum adult
populations in the acephate, permethrin and dicrotophos
treatments were significantly lower than in the control

4. treatment in both the first and second samplings after
treatment. Kalyan et al (2012) also had observed that,
acephate 75 SP was effective in controlling jassid
population and at par with dimethoate 30 EC followed by
fipronil 5 SC and triazophos 40 EC.
In T5
, adult whitefly population significantly reduced
from 14.93 adults (before spray) to 3.64 and 0.94 adults
at one and fifth day after first spray, respectively. Later
the population started to increase slightly at seventh DAS
and then reduced to 1.05 adults per leaf (Table 1). Similar
trend was seen when second spray was taken (Table 2).
The increase in population at seventh DAS might be due
to flying of adult whiteflies from adjacent plots or natural
mortality might be responsible for the decrease in
population at tenth DAS. The present study was supported
by the work of Misra (2013) where, there was 93.85 and
95.95 per cent reduction in aphid population over untreated
control when cyantraniliprole (HGW86) 10% OD was
used @ 90 and 105 g a.i./ha, respectively. His findings
were justified that antifeedant property of might be the
reason of record of low population of aphids vis- vis record
of lower incidence of cucumber mosaic virus in
cyantraniliprole treated gherkin plots (Colomaet al, 1999).
The treatment T6
recorded significantly lower adult
whitefly population of 3.24, 4.37, 4.94 and 2.54 adults at
one, five, seven, ten days after first spray, respectively
(Table 1). The same trend of efficacy was seen even
after subsequent days of second spray (Table 2). There
was sharp decrease in the population at one DAS (3.24
adults per leaf), which might be due to the repellent and
antifeedant property of azadirachtin (Mordue and Nisbet,
2000) and the slight increase in the whitefly population
from fifth DAS may be attributed to the drawback of
rapid degradability of neem after foliar applications
(Pavela et al, 2004).
In T7
there was a drastic reduction in whitefly
population to 5.52 adults at one DAS from 15.81 adults
(before spray). Later there was a slight decrease in
whitefly population from fifth DAS except at seven DAS
during first spray (Table 1).Asimilar trend was also seen
during the second spray (Table 2) indicating that the
efficacy of the chemical got reduced as days progressed.
The results are also in agreement with the findings of
Kalyan et al (2012) who revealed that fipronil 5 SC
significantly reduced the whitefly and jassid population
in cotton compared to untreated check and standard
check (dimethoate) at three and seven days after spray.
T8
significantly reduced the adult whitefly population
from 16.89 adults (before spray) to 2.35 adults at tenth
DAS during first spray (Table 1) and a similar trend was
seen during the second spray (Table 2) except that there
was slight increase in population at the tenth DAS (3.37
adults) owing to the decrease in efficacy due to its
degradability. Rasdi et al (2012) reported that avermectin
(emamectin benzoate) was found to be the most effective
against the whitefly on both brinjal and tomato.
In T9
, the adult whitefly population significantly
decreased from 17.73 adults (before spray) to 2.19 adults
at ten days after first spray with a slight increase at seven
DAS (Table 1). Similar trend was seen in the initial days
after second spray but later there was increase in the
whitefly population at seventh and tenth DAS (1.82 and
3.63 adults, respectively) (Table 2) which may be again
due to decreased efficacy owing to its degradability.
Kalyan et al (2012) revealed that spinosad, imidacloprid,
acephate and fipronil effectively controlled the population
of whiteflies and jassids in cotton and gave significantly
higher seed cotton yield over untreated check and
standard check (dimethoate).
The adult whitefly population in T10
decreased sharply
from 15.24 adults (before spray) to 4.55 adults at one
DAS, then it gradually decreased from 4.55 adults to 1.26
adults at ten DAS during first spray (Table 1). Similar
trend was seen initially during second spray at one DAS
(1.37 adults) and five DAS (1.36 adults) and whitefly
population slightly increased at seven (1.58 adults) and
ten (3.17 adults) DAS (Table 2).
The observations are in agreement with the findings
of Yasui et al (1985) who reported that although this
compound acts specifically on developmental stages and
in some cases on oviposition and egg fertility, buprofezin
showed little fast killing effect on adults in the long term
experiment. On the contrary, Bogran and Heinz (2000)
have reported that buprofezin being an insect growth
regulator did not kill adult whiteflies at the time of
treatment.
Although, azadirachtin emerged as second best
insecticide in reducing the adult whitefly population at
one DAS, its efficacy was least at five and seven DAS.
The reason for this can be attributed to its repellant and
antifeedant property that might have caused a low whitefly
population at one DAS and its rapid degradability (Pavela
et al, 2004) that might have caused a higher whitefly
population because of re-immigration at five DAS.
Taking all these aspects in consideration, one can
conclude that thiamethoxam 25% WG (T3
) was effective
in reducing whitefly population at one, five, seven and
ten DAS followed by cyantraniliprole 10% OD (T5
) at
one and five DAS and triazophos 40% EC (T2
) at seven
and ten DAS during the first spray. Similar trend was not
1072 U. S. Sachin et al

5. seen during second spray where cyantraniliprole 10%
OD (T5
) emerged as best insecticide at one, five and ten
DAS followed by imidacloprid 17.8% SL (T1
) at five,
seven and ten DAS and triazophos 40% EC (T2
) at one,
seven and ten DAS.
Thiamethoxam, being a broad-spectrum, systemic
insecticide is absorbed quickly by plants and transported
to all of its parts, including pollen, where it acts to deter
insect feeding (Nauen et al, 2003) might be the reason
for the present findings.
Cyantraniliprole is a second generation anthranilic
diamide insecticide having unique mode of action
preventing muscle contraction and death of the insect
(Lahm et al, 2005). Exposure to new chemistry might
have caused reduction in whitefly population in the present
study.
Per cent leaf curl
There were significant differences among all the
insecticidal treatments, with cyantraniliprole 10 OD (T5
)
emerging as superior insecticide in reducing the per cent
leaf curl. This may be because cyantraniliprole was an
effective insecticide in the present study to reduce
whiteflies thereby preventing leaf curl disease. The next
best treatments were Thiamethoxam 25 WG (T3
) and
Table 1 : Bio-efficacy of insecticides against whitefly adult population in field condition during first spray.
Sl. No. Treatment Dosage/l BS 1 DAS 5DAS 7DAS 10DAS
1 Imidachloprid 17.8%SL 0.3 ml 15.68(3.95) 4.06(2.01) 1.45(1.20) 1.05(1.02) 1.45(1.21)
2 Triazophos 40% EC 2.0 ml 14.80(3.83) 5.49(2.35) 1.79(1.33) 0.94(0.97) 0.89(0.93)
3 Thiamethoxam 25%WG 0.3 g 18.69(4.28) 2.13(1.46) 1.34(1.16) 0.90(0.95) 0.89(0.92)
4 Acephate 75% SP 1.0 g 15.68(3.95) 4.08(2.02) 1.39(1.18) 1.58(1.26) 1.35(1.15)
5 Cyantraniliprole 10% OD 1.8 ml 14.93(3.86) 3.64(1.91) 0.94(0.88) 1.71(1.30) 1.05(1.01)
6 Azadirhactin 10000 ppm 2.0 ml 18.22(4.25) 3.24(1.79) 4.37(2.09) 4.94(2.22) 2.54(1.58)
7 Fipronil 80% WG 0.5 g 15.81(3.97) 5.52(2.34) 3.82(1.95) 4.11(2.03) 2.70(1.65)
8 Emamectin benzoate 5% SG 0.2 g 16.89(4.10) 6.06(2.45) 4.17(2.04) 4.40(2.09) 2.35(1.53)
9 Spinosad 480% SC 0.2 ml 17.73(4.20) 7.62(2.76) 3.48(1.87) 4.03(2.00) 2.19(1.47)
10 Buprofezin 25%SC 1.0 ml 15.24(3.89) 4.55(2.13) 2.86(1.69) 2.52(1.59) 1.26(1.11)
11 Control - 14.68(3.83) 13.70(3.71) 11.40(3.38) 11.50(3.39) 7.37(2.72)
SEm± - 0.23 0.12 0.11 0.12
CD @ 5% NS 0.67 0.36 0.32 0.34
Note : Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed. BS- Before Spray. DAS - Days After Spray.
Table 2 : Bio-efficacy of insecticides after second spray against whitefly adult population in field condition.
Sl No. Treatment Dosage/l. BS 1 DAS 5DAS 7DAS 10DAS
1 Imidachloprid 17.8%SL 0.3 ml 5.93(2.43) 1.66(1.29) 1.38(1.16) 0.97(0.98) 2.77(1.67)
2 Triazophos 40% EC 2.0 ml 6.55(2.56) 1.16(1.07) 1.86(1.35) 1.02(0.99) 3.08(1.76)
3 Thiamethoxam 25%WG 0.3 g 7.38(2.71) 1.37(1.17) 1.56(1.25) 1.04(1.01) 3.64(1.91)
4 Acephate 75% SP 1.0 g 6.32(2.51) 0.93(0.95) 1.67(1.30) 1.31(1.11) 3.84(1.96)
5 Cyantraniliprole 10% OD 1.8 ml 7.75(2.78) 1.02(1.00) 1.17(1.07) 1.20(1.09) 2.34(1.53)
6 Azadirhactin 10000 ppm 2.0 ml 7.43(2.73) 0.93(0.97) 1.90(1.36) 1.56(1.24) 3.42(1.84)
7 Fipronil 80% WG 0.5 g 7.00(2.65) 1.33(1.15) 1.67(1.30) 1.96(1.40) 3.67(1.92)
8 Emamectin benzoate 5% SG 0.2 g 7.66(2.77) 1.76(1.33) 1.92(1.39) 2.10(1.45) 3.37(1.83)
9 Spinosad 480% SC 0.2 ml 6.47(2.54) 2.25(1.50) 1.80(1.33) 1.82(1.34) 3.63(1.90)
10 Buprofezin 25%SC 1.0 ml 7.18(2.67) 1.37(1.17) 1.36(1.16) 1.58(1.24) 3.17(1.78)
11 Control 8.08(2.84) 6.10(2.47) 7.26(2.69) 6.59(2.56) 7.28(2.69)
SEm± - 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.12
CD @ 5% NS 0.30 0.24 0.34 0.35
Note: Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed. BS- Before Spray. DAS - Days After Spray.
Bio-efficacy of selected insecticides against adult whitefly 1073

6. triazophos 40EC (T2
) (Table 3).
The present findings were in agreement with the
findings of Govindappa et al (2013) where they reported
that cyantraniliprole 10% OD were effective in reducing
both whitefly, B. tabaci and disease incidence at first
and final observation with least whitefly population and
leaf curl disease over spinosad 480 SC, emamectin
benzoate 5% SG and standard check, triazophos 40%
EC.
CONCLUSION
The mean whitefly population prior to insecticidal
application which was non-significant among the various
treatments decreased to low levels owing to significant
differences among the treatments after first spray.
Thiamethoxam 25%WG proved to be effective in reducing
the adult whitefly population at one, five, seven and ten
DAS followed by cyantraniliprole 10% OD at one and
five DAS and triazophos 40% EC at seven and ten DAS.
After the second spray, cyantraniliprole 10% OD emerged
as the best insecticide over all other treatments at one,
five and ten DAS followed by imidacloprid 17.8% SL at
five, seven and ten DAS and triazophos 40% EC at one,
seven and ten DAS. Further, decrease in per cent leaf
curl was noticed in T5
(cyantraniliprole 10 OD) over other
treatments because of low incidence of whiteflies in the
treated plot.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We gratefully acknowledge the support given by the
College of Horticulture, Mudigere and to the farmer who
provided field for conducting the study.
Table 3 : Per cent leaf curl due to whitefly infestation in tomato.
Sl. No. Treatment Per cent leaf curl (%)
1. Imidachloprid 17.8%SL 17.71(24.34)
2. Triazophos 40% EC 16.53(23.62)
3. Thiamethoxam 25%WG 13.95(21.87)
4. Acephate 75% SP 26.11(30.65)
5. Cyantraniliprole 10% OD 11.37(19.36)
6. Azadirhactin 10000 ppm 19.31(26.01)
7. Fipronil 80% WG 21.76(27.79)
8. Emamectin benzoate 5% SG 20.70(26.98)
9. Spinosad 480% SC 20.58(26.74)
10. Buprofezin 25%SC 18.75(25.57)
11. Control 41.12 (39.86)
SEm± 0.24
CD @ 5% 0.71
Note: The values in the parenthesis are angular transformed data.
REFERENCES
Afzal M, Babar M H, Haq I U and Iqbal Z (2014) Bio-efficacy of new
insecticides against whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) on cotton,
Bt-121. Pakistan J. Nutr. 13(6), 340-343.
Amjad M, Bashir M H, Afzal M and Khan M A (2009) Efficacy of
some insecticides against whitefly (Bemisia tabaci Genn.)
infesting cotton under field conditions. Pak. J. Life Soc. Sci.
7(2), 140-143.
Annonymous (2015) Data sheet on White fly, Trialeurodes
vaporariorum, Invasive species compendium.
Bogran C E and Heinz K M (2000) Whiteflies: House and landscape
pests. Texas Cooperative Extension; B-6127.
Castillo N J, Olive E F and Campos S S (2011) Emerging virus disease
transmitted by whiteflies. Ann. Rev. Phytopatho. 49, 219-248.
Cavalieri V, Manglli A, Tiberini A, Tomassoli L, Rapisarda C (2014)
Rapid identification of Trialeurodes vaporariorum, Bemisia
tabaci (MEAM and MED) and tomato-infecting criniviruses in
whiteflies and in tomato leaves by real-time reverse transcription-
PCR assay. Bull. Ins. 67(2), 219-225.
Coloma A G, Gutierrez C, Hubner H, Achenbach H, Terrero D and
Fraga B M (1999) Selective insect antifeedant and toxic action
of ryanoid diterpenes. J. Agri. Food Chem. 47, 4419- 4424.
Ghosal A and Chatterjee M L (2013) Bio-efficacy of imidacloprid
17.8 SLagainst whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) in brinjal.
The J. Plant Protec. Sci. 5(1), 37-41.
Govindappa M R, Bhemanna M, Hosmani A and Ghante V N (2013)
Bio-efficacy of newer insecticides against tomato leaf curl virus
disease and its vector whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) in tomato. Int. J.
App. Bio. Pharma. Tech. 4(3), 226-231.
Johnson M W, Caprio L C, Coughlin J A, Tabashnik B E, Rosenheim
J Aand Welter S C (1992) Effect of Trialeurodes vaporariorum
(Homoptera:Aleyrodidae) on yield of fresh market tomatoes. J.
Econ. Entomol. 85(6), 2370-2376.
Jones D R (2003) Plant viruses transmitted by whiteflies. European
J. Plant Pathol. 109, 195-219.
Kalyan R K, Saini D P, Urmila Jambhulkar P P and Pareek A (2012)
Comparative bioefficacy of some new molecules against jassids
and whitefly in cotton. The Bioscan 7(4), 641-643.
Lahm G P, Selby T P, Freudenberger J H, Stevenson T M, Myers B J
and Seburyamo G (2005) Insecticidal anthranilic diamides: a
new class of potent ryanodine receptor activators. Bioorg. Med.
Chem. Lett. 15, 4898–4906.
Mishra H P (2013) Newer insecticides for the management of aphid,
Aphis gossypii Glov. in gherkins (Cucumis anguria L.) and their
effect on the predator, Coccinella septempunctata L. Pest
Manage. Hortic. Ecol. 19(1), 123-127.
Mordue A J and Nisbet A J (2000) Azadirachtin from the neem tree
Azadirachta indica: its action against insects. An. Soc. Ento.
Brasil 29(4), 615-632.
Nauen R, Kintscher E U, Elbert A, Jeschke P and Tietjen K (2003)
Acetylcholine receptors as sites for developing neonicotinoid
insecticides. In: Biochemical Sites of Insecticide Action and
Resistance (ed. Ishaaya), Springer- Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg,
New York, p. 77-105.
Omer A D, Leigh T F and Granett J (1992) Insecticide resistance in
field opulations of greenhouse whitefly (Homoptera:
Aleyrodidae) in the San Joaquin Valley (California) cotton
1074 U. S. Sachin et al

7. cropping system. J. Econ. Entomol. 85(1), 21-27.
Palumbo J (2008) Comparative efficacy of insecticide combinations
against whitefly adults in Melons. Veg. Rep. 152.
Pavela R, Barnet M, Kocourek F (2004) Effect of azadirachtin applied
systemically through roots of plants on the mortality,
development and fecundity of the cabbage aphid (Brevicoryne
brassicae). Phytoparasitica 32, 286-294.
Ranjeet K, Rita S and Leena S (2015) Bio-efficacy of synthetic
insecticides against whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) infesting Bt cotton.
Res. J. Recent. Sci. 4, 1-2.
Rasdi Z M, Salmah M R C, Hassan AA, Hamady D, Hamaseh A and
Ismail F (2012) Field evaluation of some insecticides on whitefly
(Trialeurodes vaporariorum) and predator (Macrolophus
caliginosus) on brinjal and tomato plants. Asian Econ. Soc. Sci.
2(3), 2224-4433.
Scotta R, Sanchez D and Arregui C (2005) Greenhouse and field
evaluation of neonicotinoids against the greenhouse whitefly
Trialeurodes vaporariorum on tomato. Artículo Original 4(10),
45-50.
Singh K, Singh D K and Raju S V S (2009) Bio efficacy of certain neem
based formulations against whitefly, Bemisia tabaci Gennadius
causing leaf curl disease in tomato. Indian J. Entomol. 71(2),
165-167.
Vanitha S M, Chaurasia S N S, Singh P M and Naik P S (2013)
Vegetable statistics. Tech. Bull. No. 51, IIVR, Varanasi, pp. 250.
Wisler G C, Duffus J E, Liu H Y, Li R H (1998) Ecology and
epidemiology of whitefly transmitted clostero viruses. Plant
Disease 82(3), 270-280.
Yasui M, Fukada M and Maekawa S (1985) Effect of Buprofezin on
different developmental stages of greenhouse whitefly,
Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Appl.
Ent. Zool. 20(3), 340- 347.
Zanic K, Goreta S, Perica Sand Sutik J (2008) Effect of alternative
pesticides on greenhouse whitefly in protected cultivation. J.
Pest. Sci. 81, 161–166.
Bio-efficacy of selected insecticides against adult whitefly 1075