A Study on
Seasonal Incidence and Insecticide Efficacy against Helicoverpa
armigera on Chick Pea
Samra Khanam1*, Dr. Sunita Singh2
1 Research Scholar, Government Girls
Autonomous PG Excellence College, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, India
2 Professor of Zoology, Government Girls Autonomous
PG Excellence College, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, India
ashwanikhajuraho@gmail.com
Abstract: The gram pod
borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner), is a major constraint to chickpea (Cicer arietinum
L.) production, particularly during the rabi season. The present study was
undertaken to investigate the seasonal incidence of H. armigera on
chickpea and to evaluate the comparative efficacy of selected biopesticides and
a chemical insecticide through sequential spray applications. Field experiments
were conducted during the rabi season at Rahatgarh, District Sagar (Madhya
Pradesh), under natural field conditions using chickpea variety JG-315. Two
rounds of foliar sprays were applied at pest initiation and 15 days later.
Larval population was recorded before spraying and at 3, 7, and 14 days after
each spray. The results revealed that H. armigera population gradually
increased from the vegetative stage and reached its peak during flowering to
pod formation, indicating a clear seasonal incidence pattern. All treatments
significantly reduced larval population compared to the untreated control, with
greater suppression observed after the second spray. The chemical insecticide
recorded the highest reduction in larval population, yield, and benefit–cost
ratio; however, certain biopesticides also showed promising efficacy and
economic viability. The study concludes that timely and sequential application
of biopesticides and chemical insecticides can effectively manage H.
armigera on chickpea, supporting their use in sustainable pest management
strategies.
Keywords:
Chickpea, Helicoverpa armigera, Biopesticides, Seasonal incidence, Insecticide
efficacy
1. INTRODUCTION
Chickpea, also known as Cicer arietinum L., is a legume that is widely farmed in semi-arid and subtropical countries. It is considered to be one of the most important pulse crops since it provides a significant source of plant protein, carbohydrates, and critical minerals. In spite of the fact that chickpea has an important role in the production of pulses in India, its productivity continues to be relatively low owing to a number of biotic stressors, the most significant of which are insect pests. [1] Under favorable climatic circumstances, the gram pod borer, also known as Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner), is considered to be one of the most destructive pests of chickpea. It is responsible for causing significant damage and productivity losses. [2]
The pest primarily damages the crop during the reproductive phase by feeding on flowers and developing pods, which directly affects yield and seed quality. [3] The seasonal incidence and population buildup of H. armigera are greatly influenced by crop growth stages and prevailing abiotic factors such as temperature and humidity, making its occurrence variable and difficult to predict. Several studies have emphasized that a clear understanding of seasonal pest dynamics is essential for determining the proper timing of management interventions and improving control efficiency. [4]
Chemical insecticides have traditionally been the primary means of managing H. armigera in chickpea. [5] However, prolonged and indiscriminate use of these chemicals has resulted in problems such as the development of insecticide resistance, pest resurgence, environmental pollution, and adverse effects on non-target organisms, including natural enemies. [6] These concerns have led to increased interest in alternative pest management strategies, particularly the use of biopesticides and botanicals, which are considered safer and more environmentally sustainable options.
Biopesticides, including microbial formulations and plant-based products, have shown promising results against lepidopteran pests such as H. armigera when applied judiciously. [7] Recent studies suggest that the integration of biopesticides with need-based chemical applications can enhance pest suppression while reducing ecological risks. However, the performance of these treatments often varies with location, season, and application timing, highlighting the need for region-specific evaluation. [8]
In view of these considerations, the present study was undertaken to investigate the seasonal incidence of Helicoverpa armigera on chickpea during the rabi season and to evaluate the comparative efficacy of selected biopesticides and a chemical insecticide through sequential spray applications. The findings of this study aim to contribute to the development of effective, economical, and environmentally sustainable pest management strategies for chickpea cultivation.
2. OBJECTIVES
·
To study the seasonal incidence of chick
pea pest (H. armigera).
·
To evaluate the comparative efficacy of
biopesticides and certain chemical insecticides against chick pea pest (H.
armigera).
3. HYPOTHESIS
·
H1: Efficacy of biopesticides and certain
chemical insecticides against chick pea pest (H. armigera) during rabi seasons
(1st spray).
·
H2: Efficacy of biopesticides and certain
chemical insecticides against chick pea pest (H. armigera) during rabi seasons
(2nd spray).
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 Research Type:
The
study is experimental in nature and primarily based on a quantitative research
approach. Systematic field experiments were conducted to generate quantifiable
and statistically analyzable data. The purpose of the study was to assess the
efficacy of biopesticides and certain chemical insecticides against chick pea
pest (Helicoverpa armigera) during the rabi season. Quantitative data were
collected in the form of larval population counts at different observation
intervals after each spray to compare the effectiveness of treatments. The
generated data were used to evaluate treatment performance and to test the
stated hypotheses related to the first and second sprays.
4.2: Experimental Site:
The
experiment was conducted during the rabi season on private farmers’ fields at
Rahatgarh, under the supervision of the Agriculture Research Farm, Rahatgarh,
District Sagar (Madhya Pradesh). The site was selected due to its
representative agro-climatic conditions and regular incidence of chick pea pest
(Helicoverpa armigera). The experimental field was level and cultivable, with
minimal variation in soil fertility across plots. Care was taken to select
fields free from prior pesticide residues to avoid residual effects on pest
population and treatment efficacy. The soil of the experimental site was sandy
loam in texture and well-drained, suitable for chick pea cultivation. The total
experimental area measured 20 ft × 30 ft, and the trials were conducted under
natural field conditions following recommended agronomic practices throughout
the crop growth period.
4.3 Experimental Crop:
chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L.) was selected as the experimental crop during the rabi
season for the present study. The experiment was conducted using the cultivar
JG-315, which is widely cultivated in the Sagar region of Madhya Pradesh.
Certified and healthy seeds were sown following the recommended sowing time,
spacing, and seed rate for the region.
All
experimental plots were maintained under uniform agronomic practices, including
land preparation, irrigation, and fertilizer application. No plant protection
measures were adopted other than the experimental treatments under study.
4.4. Observation of
Helicoverpa armigera:
The
larval population of chick pea pest (Helicoverpa armigera) was monitored under
natural field conditions. Observations were recorded directly from the
experimental plots without artificial infestation. Larval counts were taken at
regular intervals to study the seasonal incidence of the pest during the rabi
season and to assess treatment efficacy after insecticide application.
4.5 Treatments and Test
Materials:
The
experiment was designed to evaluate the comparative efficacy of biopesticides
and a chemical insecticide against Helicoverpa armigera on chickpea.
Biopesticides:
Selected biopesticides known for their effectiveness against lepidopteran pests
were used in the study. These included entomopathogenic fungi, Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt), and Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus (HaNPV). The biopesticides
were applied at recommended doses using standard spray equipment to ensure
uniform coverage.
Botanical
Extracts: Botanical extracts were also evaluated for their insecticidal
activity against Helicoverpa armigera. The botanicals used included garlic bulb
extract (Allium sativum) and sitaphal leaf extract (Annona squamosa). The
extracts were prepared following standard procedures and applied at recommended
concentrations.
Chemical
Insecticide: A commonly used chemical insecticide, Malathion, was included as a
chemical check. It was applied at the recommended dose following standard
safety guidelines to compare its efficacy with biopesticide and botanical
treatments.
4.6 Experimental Design:
Field
experiments were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of biopesticides and a
chemical insecticide against Helicoverpa armigera on chickpea (Cicer arietinum
L.) during the rabi season. The experiment was carried out on private farmers’
fields at Rahatgarh under the supervision of the Agriculture Research Farm,
Rahatgarh, District Sagar (Madhya Pradesh). Healthy and uniform chickpea plants
(var. JG-315) were raised following recommended agronomic practices. All
cultural operations were applied uniformly across treatments, except for the
plant protection measures under evaluation.
The
treatments consisted of selected biopesticides, botanical extracts (Annona
squamosa and Allium sativum), a chemical check (malathion), and an untreated
control. All treatments were applied as foliar sprays. Two rounds of spraying
were carried out during the rabi season. The first spray was applied at the
initiation of pest infestation, and the second spray was applied 15 days after
the first spray, in accordance with the hypotheses of the study. Observations
on larval population were recorded one day before spraying and 3, 7, and 14
days after each spray.
4.7 Statistical Methods
and Tools:
The
experimental data recorded on larval population of Helicoverpa armigera,
percentage pod damage, yield, and treatment performance were analyzed using
percentage analysis and the Chi-square (χ˛) test. Percentage analysis was
employed to express pest reduction, pod damage, and yield increase over control
in a simple and comparable manner. The Chi-square test was used to determine
the statistical significance of differences among treatments by comparing
observed and expected values at appropriate levels of significance. These
statistical methods ensured objective evaluation and scientific validation of
the experimental results.
4.8 Ethical and Safety
Considerations
All
experimental procedures were conducted in accordance with standard agricultural
and environmental safety guidelines. Recommended doses were strictly followed,
and care was taken to minimize risks to non-target organisms and the
environment. Preference was given to biopesticides and botanical formulations
to promote environmentally safe pest management practices.
5. RESULTS
Table 1: Rabi season chickpea Helicoverpa armigera occurrence weekly
|
Week after sowing |
Crop stage |
Mean larval population |
|
3rd week |
Vegetative |
0.35 |
|
4th week |
Vegetative |
0.58 |
|
5th week |
Branching |
0.92 |
|
6th week |
Flower initiation |
1.46 |
|
7th week |
Flowering |
2.18 |
|
8th week |
Peak flowering |
2.76 |
|
9th week |
Pod formation |
2.41 |
|
10th week |
Pod development |
1.84 |
|
11th week |
Pod maturity |
1.12 |
|
12th week |
Maturity |
0.63 |
When the larval
population reached its greatest point, it was not until the stage of peak
blooming to pod production that it was noticed that the population had achieved
its maximum level. Due to the fact that the crop had achieved its full
maturity, there was a progressive drop that occurred in the years that
followed. It is possible that the decrease in the number of pests that occurred
during later stages might be due to the decreased availability of vulnerable
plant parts as well as poor seasonal circumstances. This is a possibility.
Given the circumstances, this is something that may be considered a
possibility.
Beginning in the flower
initiation stage and continuing until peak flowering, the number of larvae per
plant reached a maximum of 2.76, indicating a considerable rise in the number
of larvae overall. The larvae of the H.
armigera species are particularly fond of feeding on delicate flowers and
developing pods, which are both present at this period. After the population
peaked, there was a noticeable decline throughout the pod development and
maturity periods. It is probable that the hardening of plant tissues, a
decrease in the quality of the nutrients, and maybe even severe weather
circumstances had a role in the decrease in the density of larvae that occurred
during the final phases of crop development. As a result of these findings, it
has been shown that the stage of chickpea that is most susceptible to H. armigera infection is the blooming to
pod formation stage. Therefore, prompt pest control interventions are required.
Table 2: Average Helicoverpa armigera population on
chickpeas during the year
|
Parameter |
Value |
|
Mean larval population/plant |
1.63 |
|
Maximum population |
2.76 |
|
Minimum population |
0.35 |
|
Peak infestation stage |
Flowering–Pod formation |
Here is a comprehensive
look at the pest pressure that chickpea faced throughout the Rabi season. The
table summarizes the entire seasonal incidence of Helicoverpa armigera. When considering the circumstances of the natural field, an
average of 1.63 larvae per plant suggests a moderate to high pest incidence.
Due to the large number of larvae detected per plant (2.76) and the potential
for serious damage during peak infestation times, quick management measures
were essential. But, as the low population of 0.35 larvae per plant shows,
there is a much reduced pest danger during the early phases of crop
development.
The close association
between the dynamics of pest populations and crop phenology is highlighted by
the fact that the peak infection occurs throughout the blossoming to pod
formation phases of the agricultural transformation. Additionally, there is a
clear correlation between the greater larval density that occurs during this
time period and the increased risk of flower drop and pod damage, which eventually
leads to a loss of yield. Table 2's results highlight the need of monitoring
pest populations and executing control methods at important crop stages rather
than at random intervals. This emphasizes the significance of monitoring pest
populations. In general, the mean seasonal population statistics provide a
solid foundation for scheduling control actions and lend credence to the
significance of seasonal incidence studies in the process of creating pest
management techniques that are both successful and sustainable for chickpea.
Table 3: H. armigera larvae on chickpea at 3
DAS (First spray)
|
Treatment |
Larval population (larvae/plant) |
|
T₁ |
1.42 |
|
T₂ |
1.36 |
|
T₃ |
1.28 |
|
T₄ |
1.15 |
|
T₅ (Chemical check) |
0.82 |
|
T₆ (Control) |
2.47 |
Figure 1: H. armigera larvae on chickpea at 3
DAS (First spray)
The findings in the
table reveal that three days after spraying, the amount of Helicoverpa armigera larvae observed on chickpea decreased
significantly across all treatments. This was in contrast to the untreated
control group. The fact that the control plot had the highest larvae population
proved that the pest naturally accumulates in outdoor settings. Because of its
rapid knock-down effect and acute toxicity against the larvae, the chemical
check treated plot had the lowest larval population compared to the others. The
effectiveness of chemical pesticides in providing immediate pest control is
shown by their quick response, which is characteristic of these compounds.
Helicoverpa armigera larvae were found on
chickpea in much lower numbers three days after spraying as a consequence of
the treatments. The outcome was the same as that of the control group that
received no therapy. The finding that the control plot had the highest larvae
population confirmed the natural accumulation of the pest in outdoor settings.
This was the result since the recorded plan was the control plot. There were
fewer larvae in the chemical check plot than in the other treated plots because
of its fast knock-down activity and acute toxicity. The efficacy of the
chemical check is shown by this. Chemical pesticides are characterized by their
rapid reaction, which demonstrates their effectiveness in giving instant
control over pests.
Table 4: H. armigera larvae on chickpea at 7
DAS (First spray)
|
Treatment |
Larval population (larvae/plant) |
|
T₁ |
1.18 |
|
T₂ |
1.05 |
|
T₃ |
0.94 |
|
T₄ |
0.86 |
|
T₅ (Chemical check) |
0.54 |
|
T₆ (Control) |
2.63 |
Figure 2: H. armigera larvae on chickpea at 7
DAS (First spray)
It can be seen in the
table that there was a further decrease in the larvae population across all
treated plots seven days following the spraying, which indicates that the
efficiency of the treatment increased with time. The chemical check continues
to report the lowest larvae population, which is evidence that its
effectiveness has been shown over time. It is important to note that
biopesticide treatments showed a more dramatic decrease at this stage compared
to 3 DAS, which suggests that there was higher exposure of larvae to the
treatment and that the effects of the treatment accumulated over time.
Treatments T1 and T2
were shown to have higher performance in comparison to other treatments, as
evidenced by the fact that they recorded lower larvae populations than the
other treatments included. The untreated control group maintained a
considerably greater larval population, showing the need of intervention for
the successful management of pests. Biopesticides give considerable suppression
with a somewhat delayed but effective response, which makes them appropriate
for inclusion in integrated pest management methods. The findings at 7 DAS
clearly illustrate that chemical insecticides provide instant control, but
biopesticides offer substantial suppression.
Table 5: H. armigera larvae on chickpea at 14
DAS (First spray)
|
Treatment |
Larval population (larvae/plant) |
|
T₁ |
1.26 |
|
T₂ |
1.18 |
|
T₃ |
1.05 |
|
T₄ |
0.97 |
|
T₅ (Chemical check) |
0.68 |
|
T₆ (Control) |
2.79 |
Figure 3: H. armigera larvae on chickpea at 14
DAS (First spray)
A residual impact of the
treatments that were administered during the first spray is shown in the data
on the larval population that is provided in the table at 14 days after the
spraying. All of the treated plots maintained much lower levels of infestation
in comparison to the control, despite the fact that several of the treatments
showed a minor rise in the number of larvae. It was determined that the
chemical check continued to demonstrate the lowest larvae population, which is
indicative of sustained residual action and consistency in pest suppression.
Although T2 and T3 were
among the biopesticide treatments, they retained considerably reduced larvae
numbers even at 14 days after treatment, which suggests that their efficacy was
maintained over time. As the observation time progressed, there was a minor
increase in the number of larvae. This increase might be attributed to the
appearance of additional larvae or to the progressive decrease in the
effectiveness of the therapy. Despite this, the treated plots continued to be
much lower than the economic threshold level, which highlights the efficacy of
the treatments in providing prolonged protection against H. armigera.
Table 6: Percentage reduction of H. armigera larval population over control (First spray)
|
Treatment |
Percentage reduction (%) |
|
T₁ |
50.95 |
|
T₂ |
54.37 |
|
T₃ |
58.56 |
|
T₄ |
62.36 |
|
T₅ (Chemical check) |
74.14 |
|
T₆ (Control) |
— |
A clear comparison evaluation of the effectiveness of the therapy
is brought about by the percentage decrease over the control that is shown in
the table. The chemical check showed the greatest percentage decrease in the
number of larvae, which is a reflection of the powerful and quick toxic impact
that it had on H. armigera. This
significant degree of decrease is evidence that it is successful in rapidly
reducing the number of insect populations in environments with a high level of
infestation.
Among the biopesticides,
T2 and T3 demonstrated relatively larger percentage reductions, indicating that
they have the potential to be useful solutions for pest control. The fact that
other treatments were found to have decrease percentages ranging from modest to
high demonstrates that they are also beneficial in reducing the number of
insect populations. Biopesticides have the potential to greatly decrease larval
populations and help to sustainable pest control by reducing chemical residues
and environmental effect. This suggests that conventional insecticides give
maximal reduction, while biopesticides have the potential to drastically reduce
larval populations.
Table 7: H. armigera larvae on chickpea at 3
DAS (Second spray)
|
Treatment |
Larval population (larvae/plant) |
|
T₁ |
1.12 |
|
T₂ |
1.05 |
|
T₃ |
0.96 |
|
T₄ |
0.88 |
|
T₅ (Chemical check) |
0.62 |
|
T₆ (Control) |
2.58 |
Figure 4: H. armigera larvae on chickpea at 3
DAS (Second spray)
The data that is shown
in the table makes it abundantly evident that the second spray led to a
significant decrease in the number of larvae of Helicoverpa armigera
that were found on chickpea three days after the spraying. It was observed that
the larval populations in all treated plots were much lower as compared to the
control plot that had not been treated, which is evidence that the treatments
were immediately effective upon repeated application. The chemical check
revealed the lowest larval population, which is a reflection of the chemical's
powerful knock-down impact and its quick toxicity against the larvae's
development. Based on this outcome, it seems that the second spray was able to
strengthen the residual impact of the first treatment and offer better
early-stage suppression of the pest.
When compared to the
other biopesticide treatments, T2 and T3 recorded much reduced larval
populations. This suggests that the effectiveness of these treatments has
enhanced as a result of repeated exposure of larvae to the treatments. It is
important to note that the cumulative impact of biopesticides, which often
demonstrate increasing efficacy with subsequent applications, is highlighted by
the improved performance of these treatments after the second spray. The
untreated control, on the other hand, continued to exhibit a large larvae
population, which confirmed that the pests continued to multiply unabated in
field circumstances in the absence of any management measures.
Table 8: H. armigera larvae on chickpea at 7
DAS (Second spray)
|
Treatment |
Larval population (larvae/plant) |
|
T₁ |
0.98 |
|
T₂ |
0.90 |
|
T₃ |
0.78 |
|
T₄ |
0.71 |
|
T₅ (Chemical check) |
0.48 |
|
T₆ (Control) |
2.71 |
Figure 5: H. armigera larvae on chickpea at 7
DAS (Second spray)
Table shows a further
decline in larval population across all treated plots at 7 days after the
second spray, indicating sustained and enhanced control of Helicoverpa
armigera. The chemical check continues to report the lowest larvae
population, which is evidence that it has been effective for an extended period
of time and has performed consistently. It is noteworthy that the biopesticide
treatments shown a significant decrease at this stage, which suggests that
their method of action grew more effective over time as a result of repeated
administration.
Treatments T1 and T2
demonstrated higher effectiveness among the biopesticides, with larval
densities recorded that were much lower than the level considered to be
economically threshold. It is clear that these treatments are suitable for
long-term pest control based on the fact that they continued to reduce the
insect population. On the other hand, the control group that was not treated
retained a considerably greater larval population, highlighting the importance
of timely treatments in avoiding the accumulation of pests during crucial
periods of crop development. Furthermore, the findings highlight the
significance of the second spray in terms of attaining effective control of H. armigera over a medium-term period.
Table 9: H. armigera larvae on chickpea at 14
DAS (Second spray)
|
Treatment |
Larval population
(larvae/plant) |
|
T₁ |
1.05 |
|
T₂ |
0.98 |
|
T₃ |
0.86 |
|
T₄ |
0.79 |
|
T₅ (Chemical check) |
0.55 |
|
T₆ (Control) |
2.83 |
Figure 6: H. armigera larvae on chickpea at 14
DAS (Second spray)
The larval population
that was detected fourteen days after the illness had spread is a reflection of
the residual effectiveness of treatments that were administered after the
second spray (Table 4.12). Despite the fact that there was a little increase in
the number of larvae seen in comparison to 7 DAS, the treated plots continued
to maintain much lower levels of infestation than the control plots even after
the treatment was applied. The fact that this is present demonstrates that the
protection against H. armigera is
continuously maintained.
Among the treatments
with biopesticides, T2 and T3 maintained considerably reduced larvae
populations, which is evidence of their lasting residual action. It is possible
that the emergence of fresh larvae or the progressive decomposition of
treatment residues are responsible for the slight increase in the number of
insects that have emerged. Despite this, the treated plots maintained pest
levels that were manageable, which highlights the significance of the second
spray in terms of sustaining effective control throughout the time of chickpea
pod formation.
Table 10: Percentage reduction of H. armigera larval population over control (Second spray)
|
Treatment |
Percentage reduction (%) |
|
T₁ |
61.25 |
|
T₂ |
63.84 |
|
T₃ |
67.90 |
|
T₄ |
70.85 |
|
T₅ (Chemical check) |
79.70 |
|
T₆ (Control) |
— |
Table gives a clear and
dependable comparison of the effectiveness of various treatments after the
second spray based on the percentage decrease over control. An indication of
the chemical check's strong insecticidal efficacy and speed of action is the
largest percentage decrease in Helicoverpa
armigera larval population it observed. Repeated applications definitely
have a cumulative effect, since the decrease after the second spray is much
larger than the reduction after the first spray. This improvement in control
efficiency emphasizes the need of keeping pest pressure at a minimum by
consecutive sprays, especially when pest pressure is high. Rapid reduction of
larval numbers and prevention of additional infestation during crucial periods
of crop development are shown by the constant superiority of the chemical
check.
The recurrent
application of T₄ and T₃ biopesticide treatments resulted in larger
percentage reductions compared to the control, suggesting that they are more
effective than the first treatment. Subsequent applications aid in maintaining
pest control and boosting overall treatment efficacy, as seen by the rise in
decrease percentages across all treatments after the second spray. Biopesticides,
which frequently have a slow but steady effect, are especially affected by this
tendency. The findings highlight the need of a second spray that is both
well-planned and applied at the right time to effectively control H. armigera during the most sensitive
periods of chickpea growth the blooming and pod formation stages. Minimizing
pod damage and lowering yield losses are both affected by the effectiveness of
larval population reduction during this period.
Table 11: Benefit–Cost ratio comparison
|
Treatment |
Benefit–Cost ratio |
|
T₁ |
2.19 |
|
T₂ |
2.26 |
|
T₃ |
2.35 |
|
T₄ |
2.42 |
|
T₅ (Chemical check) |
2.50 |
|
T₆ (Control) |
2.05 |
Figure 7: Benefit–Cost ratio comparison
The table's benefit-cost
ratio numbers make it easy to compare and contrast the treatments' monetary
efficiency. The chemical check showed the greatest B:C ratio, which means that
it was the most profitable in terms of cost per unit of investment. This demonstrates
how well the chemical treatment has consistently controlled H. armigera and reduced production
losses. The biopesticide treatments that proved to be the most cost-effective
were T₄ and T₃, which had the highest B:C ratios. These treatments
seem to provide a good compromise between input cost and economic return, based
on the relatively high B:C ratios that were achieved.”
The absence of pest
management results in poor economic returns owing to substantial production
losses, as confirmed by the lowest B:C ratio reported by the untreated control.
The greater B:C ratios of biopesticide treatments show that they are sustainable
and economically feasible solutions for pest control, notwithstanding the
modest expenses associated with them. There is a substantial correlation
between the effectiveness of pest control measures and monetary benefit, as
shown by the rising B:C ratio from less effective to more effective treatments.
In conclusion, the benefit-cost analysis reveals that Helicoverpa armigera is best managed in a timely and effective
manner, which boosts production and profitability. The findings provide
significant evidence that integrated pest control programmes for chickpea and green
mung agriculture should include efficient biopesticide treatments, especially
T₄ and T₃.
Table 12: Yield of chickpea
|
Treatment |
Yield (q/ha) |
|
T₁ |
15.62 |
|
T₂ |
16.05 |
|
T₃ |
16.78 |
|
T₄ |
17.32 |
|
T₅ (Chemical check) |
18.45 |
|
T₆ (Control) |
12.48 |
According to hypothesis,
pest control measures greatly boost chickpea output. When compared to the
untreated control, the yield results clearly and consistently demonstrate an
increase in grain yield in all treated plots. The remarkable protective effect
against pod damage was confirmed by the greatest yield observed in the chemical
tests. Among the biopesticides, T₄ and T₃ significantly increased
yield, suggesting that improved grain formation and productivity are directly
correlated with decreased larvae population and pod damage. Due to extensive
infestation throughout the blooming and pod development phases, the untreated
control had the lowest yield. These findings demonstrate a clear link between
improved chickpea productivity and efficient insect control. Consequently, Hypothesis
are approved.
6. DISCUSSION
The
present investigation clearly demonstrated that Helicoverpa armigera exhibits a
marked seasonal incidence on chickpea during the rabi season, with increased
infestation during flowering and pod formation stages. Similar patterns of pest
incidence and population buildup on chickpea have been reported by researcher.
[9] [10] The results of the first and second sprays indicated that both
biopesticides and chemical insecticides significantly reduced larval population
compared to the untreated control, thereby supporting hypotheses H1 and H2. A
higher level of larval suppression observed after the second spray suggests the
importance of sequential applications. [11] [12] The reduction in larval
population was directly associated with lower pod damage and improved yield,
confirming the effectiveness of timely pest management interventions. Similar
efficacy of biopesticides and chemical treatments against H. armigera has also
been reported under field conditions. [13] Overall, the findings of the present
study are in close agreement with recent research conducted during 2023–2024
and highlight the potential of biopesticides as effective and environmentally
safer alternatives for the management of chickpea pod borer.
7. CONCLUSION
The
present study concludes that Helicoverpa armigera exhibits a clear
seasonal incidence on chickpea during the rabi season and poses a significant
threat during the flowering and pod formation stages. The application of
biopesticides and chemical insecticides effectively reduced larval population,
pod damage, and yield loss, thereby validating the stated hypotheses. The
greater level of pest suppression observed after the second spray highlights
the importance of timely and sequential applications for sustained control of
the chickpea pod borer. Overall, the results indicate that biopesticides, along
with need-based chemical intervention, can be successfully incorporated into
chickpea pest management programs to achieve effective, economical, and
environmentally safer control.
References
1.
Patel, S. R.; Patel, K. G. and
Ghetiya, l. V. (2015). Population dynamics of pod borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) infesting chickpea in relation to
abiotic factors. An International e-Journal 4 (2) : 163-170.
2.
Reddy, D. V., & Tayde, A.
R. (2023). Comparative efficacy of different insecticides against fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on tomato,
Solanum lycopersicon (L.). Annals of Plant Protection Sciences, 31(2), 122-126.
3.
Merga, B., & Haji, J. (2019).
Economic importance of chickpea: Production, value, and world trade. Cogent
Food & Agriculture, 5(1), 1615718.
4.
Mohapatra, S., & Yadav, U.
(2023). Comparative Efficacy of some Microbial Biopesticides against Gram Pod
Borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner),
in Chickpea, Cicer arietinum (L.). Int. J. Environ. Clim. Change, 13(9),
1565-1569.
5.
Vikrant et al. (2018)
Bio-efficacy of Insecticides against Helicoverpa
armigera in Chickpea. Legume Research, Print ISSN:0250-5371 / Online
ISSN:0976-0571.
6.
Ojha, B. L., Dahiya, K. K.,
Kumar, H. and Mandhania, S. (2022). Population dynamics of major insect pests
complex of green gram, [Vigna radiata (Linn.)] and their correlation. The
Pharma Innovation Journal, 11(4): 145-148.
7.
Tejeswari, K and Kumar, A.
(2021). Comparative efficacy of chemicals with biopesticides against tomato
fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera
(Hubner) on Tomato, Solanum lycopersicum (L.) under field conditions. J.
Entomol. Zool. Stud, 9(5), 425-429.
8.
Van Lenteren, J. C., &
Nicot, P. C. (2020). Integrated pest management methods and considerations
concerning implementation in greenhouses. In Integrated pest and disease
management in greenhouse crops (pp. 177-193). Cham: Springer International
Publishing.
9.
Ravicharan, C., & Tayde, A. R. (2023).
Field efficacy of Selected Insecticides against Pod Borer, Helicoverpa armigera
(H.) in Chick Pea (Cicer arietinum Linnaeus). In Biological Forum–An
International Journal (Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 220-223).
10.
Sharma, D., & Rajnikant, T. A. (2023).
Bioefficacy of Certain Chemicals and Biopesticides against Pod Borer
[Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)] on Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). International
Journal of Plant & Soil Science, 35(18), 49-54.
11.
Dayma, S., Tayde, A. R., & Tripathi,
A. (2024). Efficacy of Selected Biopesticides with Chlorantraniliprole against
Gram Pod Borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on Chickpea. Uttar Pradesh
Journal of Zoology, 45(13), 140-144.,
12.
Purabiya, P. N., Patel, P. B., & Jena,
M. K. (2024). Evaluation of biopesticides against gram pod borer Helicoverpa
armigera Hubner infesting gram Cicer arietinum L. Journal of Eco-friendly
Agriculture, 19(2), 396-404.
13.
Aleem, S. A., & Yadav, U.
(2023). Efficacy of Bio-Pesticides and Chemicals against Gram Pod Borer [Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)] on
Greengram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). International Journal of Plant &
Soil Science, 35(17), 608-614.