In this pptx, there is about influence of different control method of fruit fly in bitter gourd and from this research we conclude that the Bt can also control the fruit fly without chemical with greater effectiveness.

1. ECO-FRIENDLY MANAGEMENT OF FRUIT FLY IN BITTER GOURD AT
GOKULESHWOR, BAITADI
 Major Investigators
Anjali Thapa(05)
Birat Pun(13)
Dipak Khadka(17)
Sabin Kaphle(39)
Srijana Saud(43)
TRIBHUWAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE AND ANIMAL SCIENCE
GOKULESHWOR AGRICULTURE AND ANIMAL SCIENCE COLLEGE
GOKULESHWOR, BAITADI
Member Advisor:
Dr. Huma Neupane
Director
Directorate of Research,
IAAS, TU
Major Advisor:
Asst. Prof. Narendra Bahadur Singh
Department of Entomology
IAAS ,Lamjung Campus

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Result & Discussion
4. Conclusion
5. Suggestions
6. Acknowledgements
7. Some glimpses of the research

3. INTRODUCTION
Background
• Bitter gourd (Momordica charantia); cucurbitaceae family one of the major demanded
crops in Nepal
• Origination :Africa,fully domesticated : south east Asia.
• Production status
(MOALD,2079/80)
• Bitter gourd are herbaceous, tendril-bearing vine grows up to 5 m (16 ft) in length.
• Fruit is long, oblong with bluntly tapering ends and pale green in colour.
Nepal
• Area: 9690ha
Productivity: 14 Mt/ha
Baitadi • Area: 20ha
Prodctivity:8.1Mt/ha
03

4. • All insects and
vertebrates
• Loss:25-38%
Vegetable
• Fruit fly, Red pumpkin
beetle
• Loss: upto 100%
Bitter gourd
Bitter gourd Ridge gourd Snake gourd
Preference Ranking
• Sultana et al., 2017
Puncture Egg laying
Resinous
juice ooze
out
Hollowness
Premature
yellowing
Fruit rot
Unfit for
consumption
Infestation Process
• Fruit fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae) is major pest of Cucurbitaceae crop, larger in size with
brown marking on wings usually feed on the contents of fruits and cause premature
dropping of fruits.
• The melon fly is native to South Asia and is widely distributed throughout most parts of
our country (White, 1993).
• The melon fly colonizes fruit plantations throughout the whole growing season,
increasing melon sensitivity to the invasion of pathogens.
(Dao et al., 2020).
04

5. Biological
Physical
Chemical
Cultural
Non-
persistence
No
bioaccumulation
Low toxicity
Eco-friendly
Economical
Ideal Control measures
Control measures
• Host preference and eco-friendly methods aid in
sustainable cucurbit fruit fly control.
• Chlorpyrifos and Cypermethrin is often said to be soft on
beneficial insecticide, it has favourable balance of relative
toxicity and used as eco-friendly management
(NRAAVC,2007).
• A broad eco-friendly approach to fruit fly control using
various pest control tactics in a compatible manner.
05

6. • Annually, the production of Bitter gourd is in decreasing trend (from 176Mt
to 161Mt) in Baitadi (MOALD,2076/77-2077/78), Primarily due to
infestation by major pest and the impacts of climate change.
• The infestation of fruit flies was extremely severe in our research area, and
it had been causing losses in production.
• It was one of the major problem faced by local farmers and they were
unaware about effective management of fruit fly in bitter gourd.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
06

7. RATIONALE OF STUDY
• The research was planned to determine the eco-friendly management technique to
control the fruit fly in Bitter gourd in Gokuleshwor, Baitadi.
• Eco-friendly practices aim to minimize or eliminate the use of synthetic pesticide
to ensure sustainability.
• Agricultural research continues to combat farmer dependence on pesticides by
developing strategies to manage pests by reducing the volume of chemical input
needed to control them.
07

8. OBJECTIVES
 General objective
 To study eco-friendly management practices of fruit fly in bitter gourd.
 Specific objectives
 To evaluate the different management practices against fruit fly.
 To identify best management option against fruit fly.
08

9. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research site selection
• Farm of Gokuleshwor Agriculture and Animal Science College
Dilasaini-5,Baitadi
Description of site
• Elevation:750 meter above sea level
• Latitude: 29.500 N, 80.580 E
• Longitude: 80022”-80050”
• Duration :2078/12/21 to 2079/04/07
Figure 1 : Experimental site
09

10. EXPERIMMENTAL DESIGN
• Table 1: Research Design
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T6
T1
T5
T7
T2
T4
T3
T7
T4
T3
T6
T1
T5
T2
1m
Figure 2: Experimental Design
0.5m
Particulars Detail
Name of crop (Momordica charantia)
Name of variety Palee F1 hybrid
Experimental design RCBD
No. of treatments 7
No. of replications 3
Experimental area 144m2
No. of plots 21
Plot size 2m*2m
10

11. RESEARCH DETAILS
Particulars Detail
Plant Population 84
Planting distance 1 m *1 m
Distance between
replications
1 m
Distance between
Treatments
0.5 m
No. of plants per plot 4
Table 2: Research Area
Treatment Treatment used Mode of Action Dose
T1 Bacillus
thuringiensis(Bt)
Protein Toxin 2ml/ Ltr of water
T2 Neem cake Anti- Feedant 5ml/ltr of water
T3 Yellow sticky trap Adhesion 2 per plot
T4 Chloropyrifos 50% EC
+Cypermethrin 5% EC
Systematic+
Contact
2ml/ltr of water
T5 Jhol-mol Repellent 1:5 of water
T6 Beauveria bassiana Parasitism 2gm/ltr of water
T7 Control
Table 3: Treatments detail
11

12. Recommended dose- 10kg urea:6kg DAP:3 kg Potash/ropani
Fertilizer Dose/plot
Urea 206.30gm
DAP 213.57gm
Potash 74.068gm
Manure 12.28kg
Table 4: Fertilizer dose
S.N. Cultural
Operations
Date
1 Nursery
Preparation
2078/12/20
2 Seed sowing 2078/12/21
3 First Weeding 2079/01/04
4 Land
Preparation
2079/01/05
5 Field Layout 2079/01/15
6. Transplanting 2079/01/17
7 Second
Weeding
2079/02/04
8 First Spray 2079/02/14
9 Second Spray 2079/02/26
Table 5: Cultural operations
Irrigation
First irrigation was done immediately after transplanting and regular
irrigation was given for one week.
Then irrigation was given at an interval of 5 days for 25 days.
After that irrigation was continued according to need of plants
12

13. DATA COLLECTION
Parameters
Fruit flies Population
Number of infested fruits
Weight of Infested fruit(kg)
Yield(Kg)
Data Analysis
 Data entry and processing : Microsoft Office Excel 2016
 ANOVA & Mean Estimation : R-Studio version 4.3.1
 Statistical significance was taken at 5% level of probability.
.
13

14. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
14

15. Table 6. Number of fruit flies before and after first treatment
1ST Spray
Treatments Before Spray 3 DAFS 6 DAFS 9 DAFS 12 DAFS
Beauveria 11.33a 9.66b 8.33bc 8.33ab 8.66ab
Bt 11.66a 6.66c 5.33de 4.00cd 2.66d
Chlorpyrifos 50% EC +Cypermethrin 5% EC
11.66a
4.00c 3.66e 3.66cd 3.00d
Control
11.33a 13.66a 13.66a 11.33a 10.33a
Jhol mol 11.66a 6.33c 4.33e
3.33d 3.33cd
Neem cake 12.33a 10.00b 7.33cd
6.66bc 6.00bc
Yellow sticky trap
11.00a 10.66b
10.33b 9.33ab 10.00a
Grand Mean (GM) 11.57 8.71 7.57 6.66 6.28
F-test NS *** *** *** ***
LSD (0.05) 2.40 2.67 2.36 2.88 2.81
CV (%) 11.70 17.22 17.57 24.34 25.20
SEM (±) 0.29 0.32 0.29 0.35 0.34
DAFS: Days after spraying; GM: Grand Mean, LSD: Least significant difference, SEM: Standard error of mean, CV: Coefficient of variance;
15

16. Table 7. Number of Fruit flies after second spray of treatment
Treatment 3 DASS 6 DASS 9 DASS 12 DASS 15 DASS
Beauveria 7.33bc 6.66c 5.00c 3.33c 3.33bc
Bt 2.00d 1.33e 1.33d 1.00d 1.00c
Chlropyrifos 50% EC +Cypermethrin 5% EC 2.33d 1.33e 1.33d 1.33d 0.66c
Control 11.66a 13.00a 12.00a 11.00a 11.00a
Jhol mol 3.00d 3.00de 1.66d 1.66d 1.33c
Neem cake 5.33c 4.00d 3.33cd 2.00cd 1.66c
Yellow sticky trap 9.33b 8.66b 8.66b 6.33b 5.33b
Grand Mean (GM) 5.85 5.42 4.76 3.80 3.47
F-test *** *** *** *** ***
LSD (0.05) 2.13 1.98 2.75 1.45 2.59
CV (%) 20.48 20.59 32.46 21.48 41.98
SEM (±) 0.26 0.24 0.33 0.17 0.31
DASS: Days after second spray ; GM: Grand Mean, LSD: Least significant difference, SEM: Standard error of mean, CV: Coefficient
of variance;
16

17. • At 15 DASS, Treatment Chlropyrifos 50% EC + Cypermethrin 5% EC has the lowest number of fruit
flies which is followed by Bacillus thuringenesis which is statistically at par with each other.
• This Chlropyrifos 50% EC +Cypermethrin 5% EC combination effectively controls fruit fly
infestations, safeguarding crops that kills 90% adult and 50% larva population of Bactrocera spp.
(Nazir et al., 2022).
• In Bactrocera spp. the toxicity assessment of various insecticide also proved that the efficacy of
cypermethrin and Chlropyriphos (Abdullahi et al., 2020; Toyzhigitova et al., 2019).
• Bacillus thuringenesis significantly decreased the infestation of fruit fly which was also supported by
the report (Sezen et al., 2010; M. A. Shishir et al., 2015)
17

18. Table No.8 : Effect of different treatments on the percentage of fruit infestation on bitter gourd at different
intervals before and after first spray of treatment
1sSpray
Treatments Before spray 3 DAFS 6 DAFS 9 DAFS 12 DAFS
Beauveria 77.22a 73.55a 68.98a 55.74bc 53.36b
Bt 68.15ab 56.03bc 50.41b 42.56cd 24.47d
Chlorpyrifos 50% EC +Cypermethrin 5%
EC 73.80ab 48.50c 29.78c 22.64e 16.23e
Control 65.87b 76.48a 74.97a 74.62a 72.37a
Jhol mal 70.91ab 58.52bc 48.88b 37.00d 30.45d
Neem cake 71.56ab 62.09b 52.99b 50.00bcd 38.82c
Yellow sticky trap 71.32ab 72.48a 65.01a 61.14ab 58.06b
Grand Mean (GM) 71.26 63.95 55.86 49.10 41.97
F-test NS *** *** *** ***
LSD (0.05) 8.95 10.03 11.09 13.89 6.18
CV (%) 7.06 8.81 11.16 15.90 8.28
SEM (±) 1.09 1.23 1.36 1.70 0.75
DAFS: Days after First spraying; GM: Grand Mean, LSD: Least significant difference, SEM: Standard error of mean, CV: Coefficient of
variance
18

19. Table no.9: Effect of different treatments on the percentage of fruit infestation on bitter gourd at different
intervals during second spray of treatment
2nd Spray
Treatments 3 DASS 6 DASS 9 DASS 12 DASS 15 DASS
Beauveria 45.22c 40.73b 33.84b 27.23b 19.53b
Bt 18.57ef 10.89d 7.14d 4.25d 3.46d
Chlorpyrifos 50%
EC+Cypermethrin 5% EC 12.10f 8.81d 5.95d 2.22d 1.87d
Control 70.74a 61.57a 54.60a 52.06a 44.19a
Jhol mal 24.70e 17.03cd 12.81c 7.31cd 3.87d
Neem cake 32.10d 24.56c 18.04c 13.46c 10.87c
Yellow sticky trap 55.17b 48.16b 33.66b 27.52b 23.37b
Grand Mean (GM) 36.94 30.25 23.72 19.51 15.31
F-test *** *** *** *** ***
LSD (0.05) 7.16 7.97 5.62 6.36 4.63
CV (%) 10.89 14.81 13.32 18.67 17.02
SEM (±) 0.87 0.97 0.69 0.78 0.56
DASS: Days after Second spray; GM: Grand Mean, LSD: Least significant difference, SEM: Standard error of mean, CV: Coefficient
of variance 19

20. • Before spray, the mean infested fruit was 71.26% but after spray the infested fruit was
significantly reduced to 63.95% (3 DAFS) and to 15.31%(15 DASS) .
• At 15 DASS lowest infestation was in Cypermethrin and Chlorpyrifos followed by
Bacillus thuringenesis, Jhol-mol which is statistically at par with each other and the
highest infestation was observed in control.
• Eco-friendly insecticides like Cypermethrin and chlropyrifos which were applied one
after another as per the schedule, that resulted to minimize fruit fly damage in melon
fruits. (Nath et al., 2007; Waseem et al., 2009; APVMA, 2007)
20

21. Table 10: Effect of different treatments on infested weight (%) on bitter gourd at different intervals before
and after first spray of treatment
1st Spray
Treatments
Before
spray 3 DAFS 6 DAFS 9 DAFS 12 DAFS
Beauveria 75.42a 81.08ab 67.34bc 53.77b 44.95b
Bt 76.11a 58.87d 50.57d 37.32c 29.24c
Chlorpyrifos 50% EC
+Cypermethrin 5% EC 73.44a 38.32e 26.95e 19.72d 13.14d
Control 72.51a 85.22a 78.98a 69.63a 64.58a
Jhol mal 75.47a 62.98cd 58.95cd 46.29bc 31.30c
Neem cake 78.35a 72.18bc 60.35bcd 44.13bc 29.49c
Yellow sticky trap 74.96a 82.27a 71.30ab 54.92b 43.71b
Grand Mean (GM) 75.18 68.70 59.21 46.54 36.63
F-test NS *** *** *** ***
LSD (0.05) 6.58 9.39 10.53 10.77 10.71
CV (%) 4.92 7.68 10.00 13.01 16.44
SEM (±) 0.80 1.15 1.29 1.32 1.31
DAFS: Days after First spray; GM: Grand Mean, LSD: Least significant difference, SEM: Standard error of mean, CV: Coefficient of
variance; 21

22. Table 11: Effect of different treatments on infested weight (%) on bitter gourd at different intervals during
the second spray of treatment
2nd Spray
Treatment 3 DASS 6 DASS 9 DASS 12 DASS 15 DASS
Beauveria 31.45b 29.25b 22.73b 13.76b 9.09b
Bt 20.73c 11.54d 7.21de 3.20cd 1.55c
Chlorpyrifos 50% EC +Cypermethrin 5%
EC 7.69d 5.13e 4.08e 1.93d 0.92c
Control 54.80a 48.33a 47.95a 47.29a 46.69a
Jhol mal 25.85b 17.96c 10.98cd 3.94cd 2.04c
Neem cake 22.14c 17.16c 13.80c 7.19c 3.67c
Yellow sticky trap 29.51b 24.93b 22.17b 15.37b 10.34b
Grand Mean (GM) 27.45 22.04 18.42 13.24 10.61
F-test *** *** *** *** ***
LSD (0.05) 6.41 5.33 5.21 4.63 3.51
CV (%) 13.13 13.60 15.91 19.68 18.59
SEM (±) 0.78 0.65 0.63 0.56 0.43
DASS: Days after Second spraying; GM: Grand Mean, LSD: Least significant difference, SEM: Standard error of mean, CV:
Coefficient of variance;
22

23. • Treatment Chlorpyrifos 50% EC +Cypermethrin 5% EC caused reduction of fruit
infestation followed by Bacillus thuringenesis, Neem cake and Jhol-mol which are
statistically at par with each other.
• Similar results were obtained with Sharma et. al., 2016 finding.
23

24. Table 12: Effect of different treatments on yield of bitter gourd (mt/ha)
Treatments Yield(mt/ha)
Beauveria 13.46d
Bt 21.28b
Chlorpyrifos 50% EC +Cypermethrin 5% EC 24.62a
control 10.45e
Jhol mal 19.77bc
Neem cake 18.33c
Yellow sticky trap 13.55d
Grand Mean (GM) 17.35
F-test ***
LSD (0.05) 2.50
CV (%) 8.10
SEM (±) 0.30
GM: Grand Mean, LSD: Least significant difference, SEM: Standard error of mean, CV: Coefficient of variance
24

25. • The highest marketable yield was obtained from Chlorpyrifos 50% EC
+Cypermethrin 5% EC followed by Bt and Jholmol treatment whereas Control
plots had the lowest marketable yield.
• Chlorpyrifos 50% EC +Cypermethrin 5% EC affects in fecundity and fertility so
the number of damaged fruits get lower, and ultimately resulted in increased
yield, this result obtained from our research is also supported by (Sultana et al.,
2017; Toyzhigitova et al., 2019).
• Comparative efficacy of severable treatments based on marketable fruit yield was
Chlropyrifos 50% EC +Cypermethrin 5% EC > Bt> Jholmol> Neem cake> Yellow
sticky trap> Beauveria> Control.
25

26. CONCLUSION
• Melon fruit fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae) (Diptera: Tephritidae) is one of the
devastating pest found to be damaging the bitter gourd’s production the most.
• All the treatments evaluated were effective against the major insect pests of bitter
gourd to some extent but Chlorpyrifos 50% EC +Cypermethrin 5% EC followed
by Bacillus thuringenesis were reported superior in terms of controlling fruit
flies population and crop damage as well as yield.
26

27. SUGGESTIONS
• From our research, we can conclude that chemical treatment provides effective
results in reducing fruit fly infestation. However we also observed that Bacillus
thuringiensis, an eco-friendly alternative, performs well in controlling fruit flies.
• Jhol- mol as well as neem cake also can be used when Bacillus thuringienesis is
not available as they are also cost effective as well as eco-friendly.
27

28. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to extend our immense pleasure and profound
acknowledgement to:
 Major Advisor: Asst. Prof. Narendra Bahadur Singh
 Member Advisor: Dr. Huma Neupane, Director, DoR, IAAS, TU
 IAAS Dean, Academic dean and Campus chief: Parmananda Joshi
Special thanks to :
 Gokuleshwor family, our respected seniors, beloved juniors and
friends who helped throughout our research.
28

29. Seed
Plants after germination
Stalking
Fertilizer
application
Fruiting Harvesting
Some glimpses captured during our research work