Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

volume 22 issue 4 (december 2002) : 243 - 245

LEVEL OF RESISTANCE OF DIAMONDBACK MOTH (LEPIDOPTERA: PLUTELLIDAE) TO CERTAIN COMMONLY USED INSECTICIDES IN MARATHWADA REGION OF MAHARASHTRA

V
v.K. Biradar
B
B.K. Dhanorkar
1Department of Agricultural Entomology, Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani - 431 402, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Biradar v.K., Dhanorkar B.K. (2025). LEVEL OF RESISTANCE OF DIAMONDBACK MOTH (LEPIDOPTERA: PLUTELLIDAE) TO CERTAIN COMMONLY USED INSECTICIDES IN MARATHWADA REGION OF MAHARASHTRA. Agricultural Science Digest. 22(4): 243 - 245. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Larvae and pupae of diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella L. collected from the intensive crucifer growing areas of Aurangabad, Jalna and Parbhani districts of Marathwada region were reared in the laboratory of the Department of Entomology, Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani during 1998–99 to study the toxicity of endosulfan, monocrotophos and cypermethrin to F1 and F2 generations. The resistance ratio (RR) varied from 2.92 to 4.25, 1.89 to 2.27 and 1.89 to 3.11 for endosulfan, monocrotophos and cypermethrin, respectively among the districts surveyed.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Chen, J.S. and Sun, C.N. (1986). J. Econ. Entomt>l 79: 22-30.
    2. Cheng, E.Y. (1986). In: Diamondback Moth Manllgement; Proc. 1st Int. Workshop, [falekar, N.S. and Griggs, TO. ed.), AVRDC, Shanhua, Taiwan, 329-345.
    3. Chi, H. and Sun, C.N. (1975). SCi. Agric. 23: 500.
    4. Finney, D.J. (1971). Probit Analysis. 2nd ed., Cambridge, Univ. Press, London, 333.
    5. Kalra, V.K. etal (1997). J. ent. Res. 21: 351-354.
    6. Kobayashi, S. et al (1992) In: Diamondback Moth and Other Crucifer Pests; Proc. 2nd Int. Workshop, (Talekar, N.S. ed.), AVRDC, Tainan. Taiwan. 383-390.
    7. Liu, M.Y. etal. (1982). J. Econ. Entomol 75: 153-155.
    8. Prasad, SK (1963). IndianJ. Entomol. 25: 242-259.
    9. Rabindra, R J. et al. (1995). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 62: 152-153.
    10. Raju, S.V.S. and Singh, H.N. (1995).lndianJ. Entomol. 57: 164-166.
    11. Sun, C.N. et al (1986). In: Diamondback moth Management. Proc. 1st Int. Workshop, (TdIekar, N.S. and Griggs, TO. ed.), AVRDC, Shanhua, Taiwan, 359-371.
    12. Takeda, H. et al (1986). In: Diamondback moth Management. Proc.' 1st Int. Workshop, (Talekar, N.S. and Griggs, TO. ed.), AVRDC, Shanhua, Taiwan, 373-377.
    13. Talekar, N.S. and Shelton, A.M. (1993). Ann. Rev. Entomol 38: 275-301. ,
    Published In
    Agricultural Science Digest
    Article Metrics
    Metrics Icon
    0
    Views
    0
    Citations
    Reviewed By
    Share Article
    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      volume 22 issue 4 (december 2002) : 243 - 245

      LEVEL OF RESISTANCE OF DIAMONDBACK MOTH (LEPIDOPTERA: PLUTELLIDAE) TO CERTAIN COMMONLY USED INSECTICIDES IN MARATHWADA REGION OF MAHARASHTRA

      V
      v.K. Biradar
      B
      B.K. Dhanorkar
      1Department of Agricultural Entomology, Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani - 431 402, India

      • Submitted|

      • First Online |

      • doi

      Cite article:- Biradar v.K., Dhanorkar B.K. (2025). LEVEL OF RESISTANCE OF DIAMONDBACK MOTH (LEPIDOPTERA: PLUTELLIDAE) TO CERTAIN COMMONLY USED INSECTICIDES IN MARATHWADA REGION OF MAHARASHTRA. Agricultural Science Digest. 22(4): 243 - 245. doi: .

      ABSTRACT

      Larvae and pupae of diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella L. collected from the intensive crucifer growing areas of Aurangabad, Jalna and Parbhani districts of Marathwada region were reared in the laboratory of the Department of Entomology, Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani during 1998–99 to study the toxicity of endosulfan, monocrotophos and cypermethrin to F1 and F2 generations. The resistance ratio (RR) varied from 2.92 to 4.25, 1.89 to 2.27 and 1.89 to 3.11 for endosulfan, monocrotophos and cypermethrin, respectively among the districts surveyed.

      KEYWORDS

        REFERENCES

        1. Chen, J.S. and Sun, C.N. (1986). J. Econ. Entomt>l 79: 22-30.
        2. Cheng, E.Y. (1986). In: Diamondback Moth Manllgement; Proc. 1st Int. Workshop, [falekar, N.S. and Griggs, TO. ed.), AVRDC, Shanhua, Taiwan, 329-345.
        3. Chi, H. and Sun, C.N. (1975). SCi. Agric. 23: 500.
        4. Finney, D.J. (1971). Probit Analysis. 2nd ed., Cambridge, Univ. Press, London, 333.
        5. Kalra, V.K. etal (1997). J. ent. Res. 21: 351-354.
        6. Kobayashi, S. et al (1992) In: Diamondback Moth and Other Crucifer Pests; Proc. 2nd Int. Workshop, (Talekar, N.S. ed.), AVRDC, Tainan. Taiwan. 383-390.
        7. Liu, M.Y. etal. (1982). J. Econ. Entomol 75: 153-155.
        8. Prasad, SK (1963). IndianJ. Entomol. 25: 242-259.
        9. Rabindra, R J. et al. (1995). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 62: 152-153.
        10. Raju, S.V.S. and Singh, H.N. (1995).lndianJ. Entomol. 57: 164-166.
        11. Sun, C.N. et al (1986). In: Diamondback moth Management. Proc. 1st Int. Workshop, (TdIekar, N.S. and Griggs, TO. ed.), AVRDC, Shanhua, Taiwan, 359-371.
        12. Takeda, H. et al (1986). In: Diamondback moth Management. Proc.' 1st Int. Workshop, (Talekar, N.S. and Griggs, TO. ed.), AVRDC, Shanhua, Taiwan, 373-377.
        13. Talekar, N.S. and Shelton, A.M. (1993). Ann. Rev. Entomol 38: 275-301. ,
        In this Article
          Contact us
          Follow us
          Published In
          Agricultural Science Digest

          Editorial Board

          View all (0)