IJH-2018v8n17 - page 11

International Journal of Horticulture, 2018, Vol.8, No.17, 197-203
202
Imidacloprid 200 SL @ 45 g a.i./ha and Fipronil 5 SC @ 40 g a.i./ha with 9.7, 9.8, 9.8, 9.6 and 9.5, and 10.9, 10.7,
10.5, 10.8 and 10.5 kg/vine, during first and second season, respectively (Table 3). Similar results were
documented by Niranjana (2008) in grapes wherein he reported that the highest yield was recorded in the plots
treated with fipronil 80 WG (50 g a.i. /ha) followed by spinosad 2.5 SC (84.375 g a.i./ha), fipronil 80 WG (40 g
a.i./ha) and imidacloprid 17.8 EC (45 g a.i./ha). The results of present investigation are in line with Prema et al.
(2016) with respect to fipronil 80 WG treatments in grapes.
Any of the insecticides tested did not show any type of phytotoxic symptoms on grape vines at the dosages
tried viz., Fipronil 80 WG @ 40, 50, 100, 200 g a.i./ha, Fipronil 5 SC @ 40 g a.i./ha, Spinosad 45 SC @
84.375 g a.i./ha, Imidacloprid 200 SL @ 45 g a.i./ha and Standard check (Monocrotophos 36 WSC @ 360 g
a.i./ha followed by Dimethoate 30 EC @ 521 g a.i./ha) during both the years of study (Table 4). The results
are in agreement with Niranjana (2008) who revealed that any of the insecticidal treatments did not show
any type of phytotoxic symptoms on grape vines at the dosage tried i.e., Fipronil 80 WG (40 & 50 g a.i./ha),
Fipronil 5 SC (40 g a.i./ha), Spinosad 2.5 SC (84.375 g a.i./ha), Imidacloprid 17.8 EC (45 g a.i./ha),
Dimethoate 30 EC (300 g a.i./ha) and Monocrotophos 36 SL (500 g a.i./ha). Prema et al. (2016) observed
no symptoms of phytotoxicity in the plots treated with Fipronil 80 WG at 100, 80, 60, 50 and 40 g a.i./ha.
Similarly, Prema et al. (2017) did not observe any phytotoxicity symptoms in rice plots treated with
Fipronil 80 WG at 40 and 50 g a.i./ha.
Table 4 Phytotoxic effect due to Fipronil 80 WG (Regent 80 WG) recorded at 1, 3, 5, 7 and 10 days after spray (Mean of 2 years & 2
sprays)
Tr.
No.
Treatment
Dose
(g ai/ha)
Per cent
Leaf tip & surface
injury
Per cent
Wilting
Per cent
Vein clearing
Per cent
Necrosis
Per cent Epinasty
& Hyponasty
1* 3 5 7 10 1 3 5 7 10 1 3 5 7 10 1 3 5 7 10 1 3 5 7 10
T
1
Fipronil 80 WG
(Regent 80 WG)
40
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T
2
Fipronil 80 WG
(Regent 80 WG)
50
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T
3
Fipronil 80 WG
(Regent 80 WG)
100
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T
4
Fipronil 80 WG
(Regent 80 WG)
200
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T
5
Fipronil 5 SC
(Regent 5 SC)
40
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T
6
Spinosad 45 SC
(Tracer 45 SC)
84.375 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T
7
Imidacloprid 200 SL
(Confidor 200 SL)
45
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T
8
Monocrotophos 36
WSC-Dimethoate 30
EC (RPP)
360
521
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T
9
Untreated check
(Water spray)
-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Note: T
1
to T
7
- Two sprays at 10 days interval, T
8
- Monocrotophos (1
st
Spray) followed by Dimethoate (2
nd
Spray) at 10 days interval;
* 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 Days after spray; RPP= Recommended package of practice
Author’s contributions
The author has designed and carried out the field experiments for two seasons in a well established grapevine garden. The necessary
observations were recorded by author on thrips and phytotoxicity symptoms as per the protocol. The data with statistical analysis was
transformed into Tables by the author. The literature pertaining to similar works was scanned by the author and the present article
was prepared. The author read and approved the final manuscript.
1...,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 12,13,14
Powered by FlippingBook