Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Brassica-Aphid Interaction: Modulated Challenges and Sustainable Approach for Management

Written By

S.A. Dwivedi, Lelika Nameirakpam and Ajay Tomer

Submitted: September 13th, 2020 Reviewed: February 27th, 2021 Published: March 31st, 2021

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.96903

From the Edited Volume

Brassica Breeding and Biotechnology

Edited by A. K. M. Aminul Islam, Mohammad Anwar Hossain and A. K. M. Mominul Islam

Chapter metrics overview

305 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Insect pests act as main barrier in enhancing yield potential of Brassica crops. Lipaphis erysimi is considered as one of the most destructive insect species in mustard production due to its voracious type feeding and multiplication. Therefore application of insecticide is inevitable for cultivation of cruciferous crops, although systemic insecticides has been found to be suitable for management of aphid, despite of high cost, residual effect and ecological ramification have necessitated the application of bio and botanical insecticides as novel approach and are recorded significant in research. Aphids having exclusively viviparous parthenogenesis type reproduction from January to March month with the completion of eight generations are helpful in quick mass multiplication. Natural enemies Coccinella spp., Syrphid larvae and bio-pesticide found effective in suppress aphid numbers. Manipulation in sowing dates of mustard crop provides good yield and less incidence of aphid which is proved through research. Lack of environmental resistant varieties has dispensed toward non feasibility of conventional breeding approaches for developing aphid-resistant Brassica. Although application of genetic engineering plan has resulted in moderate success in development of aphid resistance, so far commercialization of such genetically modified crops has not conceivable, intimate the necessity of further insights in to host plant and aphid communication to form effective approach against aphid resistance. Therefore in this chapter the components involved in Brassica aphid communication are highlighted and present statuses and problem in aphid management are discussed.

Keywords

  • aphid
  • ecological factors
  • entomopathogenic fungus
  • predators
  • resistance varieties
  • systemic insecticide
  • yield loss

1. Introduction

Rape seeds-mustard act as a major valuable oilseed and create key commencement of utilisation of oil and cake for feeding purpose of human as well as animal respectively. It has crucial status in Indian recession. India ranked 2nd in the production of mustard among all oil seed crops followed by China [1]. Mustard shared total 26% of production of oil seed in India. Main component of mustard is oil (32–40%) and protein (15–17%) Oilseeds as dietary food on priority basis and stored as raw material in agro industry are used to prepare various commodity such as cosmetics, detergents, laxatives, soaps, lubricants, apart from it have excellent medical and therapeutic significant. Application of recent package of practices with the cultivation of high yielding varieties enhances production of mustard. Rape seed mustard are highly susceptible to incidence of several pests like mustard aphid (L.erysimiKalt), painted bug (Bagrada picta), sawfly (Athalia proxima),) leaf minor (Phytomyza atricornis) and flea beetle (Phyllotreta cruciferae), among, L. erysimiis most destructive deliberate pest of mustard. Aphid act as key crop pest due to its damaging capability of target crop in recent cropping pattern, It acts as alarming arthropod and spreaded globally including temperate and subtropical territory. Aphids suck phloem and chlorophyll tissues from tender portion of plants and causing qualitative and quantitative yield-limiting factor. Infestation of aphid decreases in the yield by reducing no. of pods/plant, no. of grains/pod and oil content within grains (Figure 1). Aphid has overcome the barrier of glucosinolates becoming involved in self protection against insects those feed on the phloem content and sequestering these compounds arresting them within body. Abiotic components such as temperature, light, moisture, wind velocity etc. express clear response on incidence as well as multiplication of aphid population, among them, temperature played significant role in multiplication of aphid and air current and rain fall were noted as significant factors for survival as well as dispersion of aphid [2]. Occurrence and intensity of aphid mainly gets in trouble by climatic factors. This pest remains active throughout the growth period of crop up to pod drying by consuming liquid content from tender vegetative portion, floweral parts and siliqua of mustard. Immature and adults stage feed on succulent vegetative and pod formation stages of crop resulting in stunted growth, wither floral parts and grains undeveloped in siliqua. Infested leaves become wrapped and discoloured, brownish marking develops on vegetative portion and show wilting symptom. L.erysimirelease sticky sweet substance which develops sooty moulds as a result vegetative portion appears black patches and faces photosynthesize inhibition [1]. Mustard aphid caused 9%–95% production losses. In India at different locality aphid caused tremendous 83% loss in rapeseed and mustard 91.3% and 34.68% at Kanpur, 59.49% at Pant Nagar, 72.61% at Ludhiana, 29.43% at Navgaon. Regarding management aphid farmers rely up on the application of synthetic chemical that creates harmful condition like residual content of toxic substance, forming resistance against target pests and indiscriminate use of such chemical causes environmental pollutions, mortality of bioagents etc. To avoid such adverse things, finding out aphid resistance or tolerant cultivars is the best effective practices for management of target pest. Mustard aphid can be managed by release of natural enemy. Among them effective bioagents are like, syrphid flies, Syrphus confrater(Weid.), Syrphus balteatus(Deg.), Ischiodon scutellaris(Fab.). Coccinella septempunctatais most effective insect feeder on various types of plant lice that recorded as successful bio agent of L. erysimi. Sprinkler irrigation helpful to wash aphid colony those attached to the apical shoot of plant and reduce aphid population by mixing them in soil. Irrigation for 2–3 times is found effective in aphid management and is economically sound. Several sustainable approaches are discussed in this article with the help of researchers’ results regarding management of aphid in mustard crop.

Figure 1.

Life cycle of predator Lady bird beetleCoccinella septempunctata.

Advertisement

2. Host plant resistance as effective phenomenon for controlling aphid

Crops infested by aphids are those having good sap content [3]. Consecutive selection of a plant, aphid required to adjust with it to obtain benefit from target crops. Pest consumes liquid content as its feeding material from phloem of plant via inserting stylets [4]. Plants external arrangement as well as manufactured complex substances of plants perform key role for safety of plant against aphid. External structure like, waxy content on leaf, hardness of fingernail skin, availability of spines and trichome affect aphid for selection of target portion of plant [5]. Further, leaves having alternative metabolites, healthful condition of fluid content of plant portion act as target host by plant lice [6]. Phytophagous crucifixion as well as essentiality of plants are altered with changeable climatic condition that at last ramification for their communications. [7], Increase temperature, carbon dioxide, moisture stress, environmental pollutant generally SO2, NO as well as NO2 enormously alter population of aphid to select its suitable target host [8]. Correspondingly, be concerned with development of aphid and their collaboration with other biotic additionally decided link with aphid and target host plant [9].

Advertisement

3. Nourishing mechanism of aphid on target host

Aphid changes their size by moulting process in nymphal form body that depend up on the nourishment gain from target host. Inside complexity of all harmful arthropods of mustard, aphid has the ability to bear carotenoid shade from normally in selected hosts [10]. Plant lice species does not impel toward other plant canopy as their host plant. On their selected target they attacked on generally all tender parts of plant, like vegetative, floweral part, branches and pod. Plant cell sap is suck by modified piercing and sucking type mouthparts of aphids, mouth parts of aphid are modified as needle like structure stylets combination that slices target tissue of plant to insert in phloem site and concurrently stylet penetrate in to the phloem. Aphid form two particular types of spit, protein as well as jellifying thick saliva around the stylet helpful to create an intercellular course in phloem for the purpose of penetrating stylets [11], next sorts of saliva discharge occurred to takeoff filter through stylet into the vascular structure of target host. Aphid release sugar rich material recognisable as honeydew that enhances the improvement of dirty form in the monetary patches of plants and curtail the nature of item [12]. Yet, honeydew sweet in nature attract ants for spare them from normal foes of aphid. Continuation ways of aphid about 20–40 days; its higher increase rate acts as its life assurance for maintain their population in crop ecosystem by providing protection from natural enemies.

Advertisement

4. Reproduction pattern of aphid

Aphid shows both sexual and asexual type of reproduction capability along with comparatively simple reproductive adjustment. On the basis of availability of host plant aphid expresses either autoecious (No change in host, monoecious) or heteroecious type of life history. Mainly aphid completes monoecious life cycle, by spending entire life on single host plant [13] but on the other hand, only 10% aphid is noted as heteroecious by completing their single life cycle on different hosts [14]. On the basis of environmental situation, aphid is capable to produce of nymphs or eggs at different time of year, it may be holocyclic means completing life cycle changing between parthenogenesis or sexual reproduction or anholocyclic means incomplete life cycle expressing only parthenogenesis but no sexual reproduction pattern life cycle followed by aphid [15]. In favourable condition aphids promote both type of life cycle. In holocyclic life cycle at low temperature eggs on primary host hatched in spring, developed in to winged mother (fundatrices), which quickly convert parthenogenesis or viviparous type of reproduction promoting wingless female population shortly. With increase of temperature wingless female gave birth of new apterous generation of aphid. In cold condition apterous aphid promoted into alate form, a few of which were males participated in sexual reproduction by mating with female and returned on primary for oviposition [16]. At the beginning of spring season hatching of these eggs occurred for recycling of life (Figure 2). Males are completely absent only asexual reproduction is recorded in anholocyclic life cycle. Viviparous females gives birth only female aphid parthenogenetically throughout the year (Figure 2). Mustard aphids are located mostly in various geographical locations, where overwintering oviposition process almost completely absent, it shows parthenogenetic type reproduction by entire year [17].

Figure 2.

Infestation ofLipaphis erysimion mustard crop.

The adult females deposited eggs on tender leaves and shoot and go through an advancement of hatching. Such growth and development of plant lice with no preparation produce their little girl aphid. This structure develops via parthenogenesis type reproduction in hilly area [18]. It has affection for selection of host plant for deposition of egg mass in hilly area. Host attributes like, genetically modification, external appearance, physiological structure, engineering, appropriation, thickness of vegetative portion and physical signs are considered by plant feeder as well as aphids for proper selection of their ovipositional place [19]. In the mid year time frame they pick woody hosts for optional or agricultural crops, including vegetable harvests of families Chenopodiaceae, Compositae. Cucurbitaceae, Cruciferae and Solanaceae [20]. Yet, in the ephemeral crops aphid deposited their eggs mass on floral parts or young branches near to floweral parts [21]. Natural as well as synthetic characters of flowers of target crops alter oviposition of aphid. Female adults find out safety as well as mechanical assist in the deposition of eggs due to them select elongated floweral parts generally. Main parts of leaf having alleco-synthetic admixture as well as lipids can beside create oviposition [22]. Crop volatilise beside supporting in the reproductive improvement help in the and release of sex pheromones by female aphid [23]. In plain region, L. erysimireproduces entirely by viviparous parthenogenesis type reproduction from January to March month, in this particular period, the aphid completed, on an average eight generations (Figure 3) [24, 25].

Figure 3.

Stages of mustard aphidLipaphis erysimi.

Advertisement

5. Effects of temperature and drought condition on growth and multiplication of aphids

Temperature play an important role in managing wing spread, divergence, improvement as well as evolution of life stages in aphid [26]. In summer season aromatic plants provide best quality food comparison with wooded plant. Plant lice can overthrow the command forced at high temperature from dislocate themselves from that territory’s host plant to other target host [27]. Increase the strength of aphid colony in crop ecosystem depends upon the optimum range of temperature. In different experiment, it was clear that occurrence and intensity of aphid were directly related on temperature as well as warm moist cloudy weather on mustard [28]. There are several acceptances that water compression approach in the recurrence of some phytophagous arthropods [29]. Aphid depends on the with balanced water pressure on plants [30]. Thus, aphid tries to move another place from their disturbed place and starts feeding on host crops where development of population easily takes placed with reduction of yield.

5.1 Factors influencing the selection and modification of target crops by aphid

Plant lice are one of the valuable agricultural destructive arthropods in crop production related with 4500 species globally. Its short life cycle completed within month, with high fecundity facilitates them to continue their destruction on crops by mass multiplication and maintaince population in the field. It acts as vector of transmitting viral diseases. Application of chemical to manage target pest population within field crops has harmful issues in as creating environmental pollution and health hazard. Regular use of synthetic molecules creates resistance in target pest as well as changes status of small population of pest in to major problem. Eco-friendly pest management practices can provide useful way for reduction of aphid population from field crop. Proper handling of crop ecosystem segment supplies excellent choice to avoid harmful effect of pesticide application. Reciprocal action of plant lice with their host plant is a basic principles for protect environment from chemical pollutant. Target crop of pests that provide shelter as well as nutritive food, aphids are phytophagous in nature dependent on various agricultural crops to complete life cycle [3]. After finding suitable host plant, aphid accommodate with it to take required nutrient from plant. They ingest liquid content as food material from phloem region of host by inserting their stylet [4]. External arrangement as well as synthetic molecule on crops is the first part of defence of plant to counter the attack of aphid such as waxy coating on upper part of leaf, hard integument, availability of ridges and trichome alter plant lice to search target crops [5]. Nutritional status and water availability within cell sap and secondary metabolites interfere in searching suitable target crops by aphid [6]. Phytophagous pest activity as well as attributes of host is affected by the modification of climatic condition that ultimately disturbs their interactions. [7], Exalted temperature, CO2, moisture stress as well as ecosystem pollutants like SO2, NO and NO2 show significant impact on aphid multiplication and finding their target host crops [8]. In further, nature of damage as well as birth rate of plant lice and its intercommunication with another living organism are helpful to decide the relation among them [9]. Simple correlation with meteorological parameters revealed that among the abiotic factors (Temperature, relative humidity and rainfall), temperature had the biggest impact in enhancement as well as maintenance of aphid populace. The appearance of Coccinellaspp. and the larvae of Syrphid fliesare positively correlated with temperature, while there was negative correlation with the occurrence of mustard aphid Lipaphis erysimi. There is positive correlation between the population of aphid and relative humidity [24].

5.2 Comparable study on life table of L.erysimion alternate host

Canola acts as important cash crop in Iran. L. erysimiis key pests of cruciferous crops globally having 10–90% damaging capability relaying on the harshness of attack on target host [31, 32]. Aphid is capable to damage on leaf, flower and fruits of canola [33]. Regarding management of aphid application of chemical pesticides causes a lot of adverse effects including toxic effects on natural enemies, outbreak of secondary pest, contamination of food web and residues creating problem on the aspect of health hazard of living organism in ecosystem [1]. To find out substitute chemical in pest management, use of bioagents is an effective tool [34]. Work on Life stages makes it easy to consider the population dynamics of insects and provide information about reproduction, survivality and development [35, 36, 37, 38]. Lot of research work studies have appraised the effect of various Brassicagermplasm on demographic limitation of Plutella xylostella(L.) [36, 39, 40, 41], Chromatomya horticolaGoureau [42], Myzus persicae[42], Thrips tabaci[43], Brevicoryne brassicaeL. [44, 45]. Additionally, response of several canola germplasm on various life stages of L. erysimiwere already studied [32, 46]. Including the multiplication factors of aphid and its natural enemies on canola host at several nitrogen fertiliser treatments [34].

5.3 Function of effector protein in spreading of aphid

It is considered that available protein in aphid saliva acts as effector proteins with specific disparate function that combine to stop immune process of the target crop formation of effective colony, new approach of bioinformatics and proteomics instrument applied for identification scant strength of effectors in aphid [47, 48, 49]. Few of them effectors express excepted work like as cell wall degradation with enzyme (Amylases, pectinases, glucanases) or detoxification (peroxidases, phenol oxidases, oxidoreductase) but generally this effector was recorded as dissimilarity to protein with known work [48].

5.4 Communication through signal response in host following aphid infestation

Endogenous signalling molecule of host crop performs a significant role in the management of protective response against attack of phytophagous. Communications between the plant hormones like as gibberellic acid (GA), jasmonic acid (JA), abscisic acid (ABA), salicylic acid (SA), hydrogen peroxide (H202) and nitric oxide(NO) creates a complex interrelated structure where all component influence each other by both synergistic and inhibitory communication proceeded to a protective mechanism [4]. Aphid like as Brevicoryne brassicae, Myzus persicaehas been reported to defeat host crop by introducing resistance via manipulating of cross communication in between signalling molecules through promoting of SA- dependent pathway as well as concurrently down promoting JA-dependent pathway [50].

Advertisement

6. Biogical aspect as well as sustainable potential of three effective bio control agents against L. erysimi

Management of aphid’s natural enemies such as, Ladybird beetle, Coccinella septumpunctata(Linnaeus), Syrphid flies, Episyrphus viridaureus(Wiedemann), Betasyrphus isaaci(Bhatia) perform significant role in mid altitude hills of Meghalaya. Basic speciality of natural enemies and functional status against target pest is very much essential to utilise them judiciously. Consequently, the biological aspect regarding consuming strength of C. septempunctataand syrphid flies were studied in lab condition, to get their effectiveness, strength as well as more benefits in reduction of aphid population [51, 52, 53, 54]. Lipaphis erysimi(Kalt.) was found to be parasitized by ten hymenopterous parasites, belonging to two families, five genera. Out of these parasities Diaeretus rapaeand Aphidius spp. play significant role in reducing aphid population. [55] M. anisopliaeand B. bassianawere the most effective with less toxicity against Ladybird beetle and syrphid fly by continuously increasing population after application [56].

6.1 Coccinella septempunctata

Female adult deposited yellow coloured eggs in group near about 26–45. Hatching duration 3.5 ± 0.5 days to be recorded, growth and size of the larva enhanced with each successive ecdysis. Total grub duration was recorded 26 ± 3 days. Grey to black in colour with external orange pupa was observed of C. septempunctata.The size of the adult and pupa approximated the same (Figure 4). The pupal duration was recorded 7.5 ± 1.5 days, longevity of female adult was l31.5 ± 1.5 days as well as fecundity was 357.45 ± 22.41 eggs [57, 58]. Adult beetle on an average consumed 95 aphids per day [59] adult consumed 339 aphids and larva 540 aphids (Table 1) [61].

Figure 4.

Life cycle modification in aphid.

ParameterPredators
Coccinella septempunctataEpisyrphus viridaureusBetasyrphus isaaci
Incubation period3.5 ± 0.5 days03 ± 0.5 days3 ± 1 days
Larval period26 ± 3 days22 ± 1.5 days21 ± 1.5 days
First instar3.5 ± 0.5 days12.9 ± 1.0 days13 ± 0.5 days
Second instar7.5 ± 1.5 days4.1 ± 0.5 days3.90 ± 1.0 days
Third instar6.5 ± 0.5 days5.0 ± 1.0 days4.0 ± 0.5 days
Fourth instar8.5 ± 1.0 days
Pupal period7.5 ± 1.5 days7 ± 1 days8 ± 1 days
Adult longevity31.5 ± 1.5 days14 ± 1.5 days13 ± 1 days
Life cycle68.5 ± 6.5 days47 ± 2 days41 ± 2 days
Fecundity357.45 ± 22.41. No/female45.0 ± 16.8. No/female31.2 ± 13.6. No/female

Table 1.

Biological attributes of three predators of mustard aphids under laboratory conditions.

Source: [60].

6.2 Episyrphus viridaureus

Near or within colony of aphid single eggs deposition occurred by E. Viridaureus.White colour and oblong in shape eggs hatching was recorded up to 3 ± 0.5 days. Immature stage completed three larval instars. Intrusting, apodus larvae of E. viridaureushad a permeable body, internalorgans clearly visible. Life span of larvae was recorded to be 22 ± 1.5 days. Creamy as well as pear frame, tapered at the one side of pupae had 7 ± 1 day duration. Longevity of adult female was a 14 ± 1.5 day with fecundity was 45.0 ± 16.8 eggs. Total life history was completed in 47 to 49 days. f E. balteatuswas recorded to take 21.2 days to completes its life cycle having larval duration of 7.6 days (Table 1) [62].

6.3 Betasyrphus isaaci

Greyish in colour as well as oblong shaped eggs deposited by adult female had incubation duration 3 ± 1 days. Larval period completed within 21 ± 1.5 days having three larval instars. 8 ± 1 days were recorded as pupal period. Longevity of adult female was 13 ± 1 days as well as laid 31.2 ± 13.6 eggs (Table 1).

6.4 Consumption capability of predators on aphid

The study on these predators, feeding capability on plant lice noticed that last grub instar devoured highest aphids than earlier instar grub and enhance each consecutive instars. Such capability of natural enemies’ grub of C. septumpunctatawas observed higher than both the species of syrphid flies. Individual adults of lady bird beetle feed on an average of 81.55 ± 15.34 aphids per daily and ultimately feed on 2691.00 ± 533 aphids during mature stage. Both grub and adult stages of it are predatory in nature and therefore it was recorded most superior predator of mustard aphid. One adult feed near about 4312 ± 537.74 aphids in a lifespan; which is much more than E. viridaureus(416.67 ± 6.76 aphids) and white fly (338 ± 7.89 aphids). Maximum feeding occurred during final instar of grub which could be associated with modification of mouth structure as well as excellent metabolism than early instars. This result provided support to several outcomes on feeding capability of different syrphid and coccinellids[1, 63, 64, 65]. The first to fourth instar of grub of lady bird beetle feed on 21.43, 46.90, 72.61, and 102.60 aphids daily, respectively [1]. The feeding capability on prey of Episyrphus spp. enhanced slowly with the growth of grub [64]. Observation regarding the feeding potential of white fly is not available in the existing literature, however, reported that the first, second and third instar of another closely related syrphid, B. serariusfeeds on 11.5, 44.75 and 232.5 aphids daily (Table 2) [65].

StagesDaily consumption of aphids per day (Mean ± SE)Consumption per life stage (Mean ± SE)
Coccinella septempunctataEpisyrphus viridaureusBetasyrphus isaaciCoccinella septempunctataEpisyrphus viridaureusBetasyrphus isaaci
First instar20.42 ± 00.4207.30 ± 0.0806.51 ± 0.17081.67 ± 0.33095.00 ± 1.51084.67 ± 1.30
Second instar35.00 ± 00.9923.58 ± 0.2223.75 ± 0.29315.00 ± 1.34094.00 ± 4.30095.00 ± 4.80
Third instar65.48 ± 01.2745.53 ± 1.0939.58 ± 1.46458.33 ± 1.29227.67 ± 0.95158.33 ± 1.79
Fourth instar85.11 ± 01.39766.00 ± 1.78
Adult81.55 ± 15.34Free livingFree living2691.00 ± 533Free livingFree living
Total cons umption4312 ± 537.74416.67 ± 6.76338.00 ± 7.89

Table 2.

Feeding potential of three major predators of Lipaphis erysimi.

Source: [60].

Advertisement

7. Occurrence and management of mustard aphid through cultural practices

Thirty-eight insect pest incidences are recorded on mustard crop in India. In the country among them aphid acts as key pest in mustard growing region. Nymphs and adults both stages of aphid damaged crop by sucking liquid food material from the leaves, flowers as well as siliquae making the qualitative and quantitive loss in yield. Aphid reduced 35.4 to 96% yield loss, 30.9% weight loss and 2.75 per cent oil loss in mustard [66, 67, 68, 69].

7.1 Date of sowing

The occurrences of L. erysimias well as its population build up were recorded at full flowering stage and full pod setting stage of the crops. The yield of various varieties was recorded at harvest. Rapeseed-mustard varieties sown during first and third week of October, minimum level of aphid infestation, while those sown in first and third week of November, were infested heavily, Among the varieties, the gobhi sarson (HPN-1) was highly susceptible to the aphid attack, while B. carinata(HPC-1) was least infested as compared to other varieties. Varieties sown early provided greater yield, while Varuna and HPC-1 gave the higher yield than the rest, irrespective of sowing date [70]. The L. erysimipopulation was minimum in crops sown on 10thOctober and maximum in crops sown on 24thNovember where average aphid population was 40.70 aphids/10 cm twigs. Indian mustard sown on 10thOctober successfully evaded the infestation of the 2 insect pests during the study [71]. Significantly least aphid population of 7.3 and 7.4 aphids/10 cm apical shoot on the seasonal total emergence to maturity was recorded on early sowing. Variety Rohini (15th October) provided the effective combination having less aphid population but higher yield, 58.6 and 60.4 aphids/10 cm apical shoot and seed yield, 1670.7 and 1915.1 kg/ha [2].

7.2 Utilisation of aphid resistant variety

Application of resistance cultivar acts as eco-friendly way to control aphid infestation on Brassica crops. For development of resistant variety utilisation of conventional breeding techniques required lot of time and repetition due to deficiency of resistant component in cultivated as well as wild relative of Brassica. In recent screening of two wild type Brassica varieties (B. fruticulosaand B. montana) followed by breeding chance of B. junceashowing heritable introgession against resistance of aphid in lab condition [72]. Based on pooled mean of aphid infestation index (0–5 rating scale), genotypes were classified to different grade of resistance. Out of 65 genotypes, six genotypes viz., NDR-05-1, RW-2-2, ONK-1, NRCKR-299, Kiran and T-27 were categorised as highly resistant, 16 genotypes were found as resistant, 21 genotypes were found moderately resistant, 13 genotypes were graded as susceptible and remaining nine genotypes were highly susceptible. Three Brassicagenotypes (NRCKR-299, Kiran and T-27) were found consistently as highly resistant at both full flower and pod stages [73, 74]. On the basis of aphid infestation index at the time of flowering as well as siliqua development, it was observed that varieties Varuna and Vaibhav were susceptible to aphid infestation. Uravasi, Maya, Vardan, Ashirvad and Pitambari were noted as fairly resistant to aphid while Rohini showed resistance to aphid incidence [75]. Avoidable mustard production loss due to L. erysimiwere checked in four cultivar of Karan rai, Ethiopian mustard as comparative with Indian mustard Varuna [76].

7.3 Balanced application of fertilisers

Combined utilisation of biofertilizers, growth retardant and compost can therefore be employed for regulating crop metabolism and physiological responses resulting in enhanced crop growth and protection against pathogens and pest [77].

7.4 Role of yellow sticky trap in aphid management

Performance of yellow sticky trap and imidacloprid 17.8% SL was assessed on farmer’s field through front line demonstrations. The per cent increase in the yield under demonstration technology was 18.52% and 26.99% over the farmer’s practices [78]. Monitoring of alate aphid initial average population ranged from 0.93 to 19.42 aphids per trap and attained to peak at interval relay upon the climatic factors from 9th to 12th standard week [79]. The initial average population ranged from 0.2 to 0.6 aphids per trap and came to peak alternately relaying upon the climatic factors during 7th to 10th standard week [80].

Advertisement

8. Application of entomopathogenic fungus in management of aphid

Lot of commercial fungal biopesticides with several brand names as well as formulations are available as agro-product globally [81]. The perverted entomopathogenic fungi Beauveria bassiana(Balsamo) Vuilleminand Metarhizium anisopliae(Metschnikoff) Sorokin are bioagents of a wide range of soft bodied insects including aphids, mealy bugs and arachnids; both fungi have a cosmopolitan distribution [82, 83]. Lecanicillium (Verticillium) lecanii(Zimm.) Zare & Gams has been used against greenhouse whitefly, thrips and aphids [84, 85, 86]. Similarly, Paecilomyces fumosoroseus, P. farinosus and P. lilacinushave been reported as entomopathogenic on a variety of insect pests [87, 88]. Very little information is available on the use of indigenous entomopathogenic fungi for the control of insect pests in Pakistan [84, 85]. A local strain of M. anisopliaewas applied against cabbage aphid Brevicoryne brassicaeL. This strain has also been screened for its compatibility with insecticides. Similarly, two local strains of M. anisopliaewere used against Coptotermes heimiWasmann [89]. The present report describes the efficacy of exotic and indigenous strains of M. anisopliae, Paecilomyces lilacinus, Lecanicillium lecaniiand B. bassianaagainst the mustard aphid. Among entomopathogenic biopesticides M. anisopliae(83.23%) was found to be the most effective against mustard aphid followed by B. bassiana(78.33%) and B. thuringiensis(73%). Bio-pesticides can be used as a potential candidate for integrated pest management against mustard aphid after field efficacy [90]. Biological control of crop pests and diseases has been found to play significant role in reducing the over reliance on chemical pesticides.

Advertisement

9. Botanical pesticides

The crude aqueous extracts from Ageratum conyzoides(L.), Parthenium hysterophorus(L.), Lantana camera(L.), Solanum nigrum(L.), Cannabis sativa(L.), Calotropis gigantean(L.), Livistona chinensis(Jacq.), Cassia angustifolia(Mill.) were checked for its insecticidal as well as repellent activity against M. persicae(Sulzer) and Brevicoryne brassicae(Linnaeus). Repellent activity was inversely related to concentration of plant extract [91]. The antioxidant activities of different fraction of the methanolic extracts were indicated in the range of 69.08–84.89%. Thirty-four leaf extracts as well as Azadirachta indicawere checked against healthy aphids kept in petri plates. It was observed that all the treatments show insecticidal properties versus aphid but the extract from Chrysanthemum, Calotropis proceranoted result at par with A. indica.The other plant extracts Zingiber offcinale, Ageratum conyzoides, Lantana camera, Pinus roxburghii, Allium sativum, Ricinus communis, Cymbopogon citratesand Hevea brasiliensisyielded excellent outcomes [92] showing in Table 3.

S.
No.
Local NameScientific NameParts usedPer cent morality of aphid
1AdrakZingiber officinaleLeaves22.20
2BaelAegel marmelosLeaves14.43
3Neela phulnuAgeratum conyzoidesLeaves29.96
4Panch phuliLantana cameraLeaves22.16
5BannaVitex negundoLeaves13.30
6Curry leafMurraya koengiiLeaves6.66
7BougainvilleaBougainvillea glabraLeaves9.86
8MintMentha spicataLeaves8.86
9BhangCannabis sativaLeaves22.20
10NeemAzadirachta indicaLeaves35.43
11SimalBombax ceibaLeaves15.50
12CamphorCinnamomum camphoraLeaves6.63
13MorphankiThuja orientalisLeaves6.63
14DaturaDatura stramoniumLeaves4.40
15Congress grassParthenium hysterophorusLeaves9.96
16PinesPinus roxburghiiLeaves26.63
17BamboosBambusa arundinaceaLeaves4.40
18DarekMelia azedarachLeaves9.96
19Jungle chulaiAmaranthus spinosusLeaves1.22
20AmlaPylllanthus emblicaLeaves8.86
21HarrarTerminalia chebulaLeaves18.86
22AkCalotropis proceraLeaves32.20
23Gul-e—DaudiChrysanthum coronariumLeaves41.06
24African MarigoldTagetus erectaLeaves17.76
25BurweedXanthium strumariumLeaves6.63
26KinnowCitrus sinensisLeaves19.96
27GarlicAllium sativumLeaves25.53
28SoybeanGlycine maxLeaves17.73
29CastorRicinus communisLeaves23.30
30TalhiDelbergia sissooLeaves18.86
31Lemon grassCymbopogon citratesLeaves26.63
32JambolanSyzygium cuminiLeaves16.66
33Rubber plantHevea brasiliensisLeaves22.20
CD (P = 0.05)5.8

Table 3.

Evaluation of various plant-extracts against mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi.

Source: Srivastava & Guleria, (2003).

Advertisement

10. Conclusion

In this chapter it can be concluded that aphid acts as dominant among all pest of mustard crop having 10–90% damaging capability with a significant reduction of yield. To avoid indiscriminate application of synthetic pesticides those show harmful effect on beneficial organism and application of eco-friendly management practices should be employed. However we will require extending of dynamics communication between host plant resistance as well as biological control with target pest in relation to changing climatic condition.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the improvement of this manuscript made through comments by reviewer.

Author contributions

Listed authors have made substantial direct and intellectual contribution for this review article as well as approved it to submit for publication.

References

  1. 1. Singh, K. & Singh, N.N. (2013) Preying capacity of different established predators of the aphidLipaphis erysimi(Kalt.) infesting rapeseed-mustard crop in laboratory conditions. Plant Protection Science,49(2): 84-88
  2. 2. Dwivedi, S.A. & Singh, R.S. (2019) The occurrence and intensity of mustard aphidLipaphis erysimi(Kalt.) on dates of sowing in different varieties respect to yield parameter, Journal of Entomological Research 43 (4) : 491-498
  3. 3. Kumar, S. (2019) Aphid-Plant Interactions: Implications for Pest Management. In: Vegetation-Natural and Cultivated Vegetation in a Changing World. Plant Communities and TheirEnvironment 1-19
  4. 4. Morkunas, I. & Gabryś B (2011) Phytohormonal signaling in plant responses to aphid feeding. Acta Physiological Plant, 33: 2057-2073
  5. 5. War, A.R., Paulraj, M.G, Ahmad, T, Buhroo, A.A. & Hussain, B. (2012) Mechanisms of plant defence against insect herbivores. Plant Signal Behaviour, 7: 130620
  6. 6. Powell, G., Tosh, C.R., & Hardie, J. (2006) Host plant selection by aphids: behavioral, evolutionary, and applied perspectives. Annual Review of Entomology, 51: 309-330
  7. 7. Awmack, C.S., Harrington, R., & Lindroth, R.L. (2004) Aphid individual performance may not predict population responses to elevated CO2or O3. Global Change Biology 10: 1414-1423
  8. 8. Sun, Y., Guo, H. & Ge F (2016) Plant–aphid interactions under elevated CO2: some cues from aphid feeding behavior. Front Plant Science, 7: 502
  9. 9. Watanabe, S., Murakami, Y. & Hasegawa, E. (2018) Effects of aphid parasitism on host plant fitness in an aphid-host relationship. PLoS One 13: 1-12
  10. 10. Moran, N.A. & Jarvik, T. (2010) Lateral transfer of genes from fungi underlies carotenoid production in aphids. Science328(5978), 624-627
  11. 11. Guerrieri, E. & Digilio M.C. (2008) Aphid-plant interactions: a review. Journal of Plant Interaction, 3: 223-232
  12. 12. Binazzi, A. & Scheurer, S. (2009) Atlas of the honeydew producing conifer aphids of Europe In: Aracne, Rome, Italy
  13. 13. Dixon, A.F.G. (1985) Structure of aphid populations. Annual review of entomology. 30(1): 155-174
  14. 14. Moran, N.A. (1992) The evolution of aphid life cycles. Annual Review of Entomology 37(1): 321-348
  15. 15. Agarwala, B.K. (2007) Phenotypic plasticity in aphids (Homoptera: Insecta): components of variation and causative factors. Current Science-Bangalore. 93(3): 308
  16. 16. Bhatia, V., Uniyal, P.L. & Bhattacharya, R. (2011) Aphid resistance inBrassicacrops: challenges, biotechnological progress and emerging possibilities. Biotechnology advances. 29(6): 879-888
  17. 17. Conrad, J. (2009) The aphid life cycle, the backyard nature.http://www.backyardnature.net/aphid_lc.html
  18. 18. Dedryver, F. (2013) The genetics of obligate parthenogenesis in an aphid species and its consequences for the maintenance of alternative reproductive modes. Heredity (Edinb) 110: 39
  19. 19. War, A.R., Taggar, G.K., Hussain, B., Taggar, M.S. & Nair, R.M. (2018) Plant defence against herbivory and insect adaptations. AoB Plants 10: 1-19
  20. 20. Powell, G., & Hardie, J. (2001) The chemical ecology of aphid host alternation: How do return migrants find the primary host plant? Applied Entomology of Zoology, 36: 259-267
  21. 21. Holopainen, J.K. (2002) Aphid response to elevated ozone and CO2, Entomologia Exp- erimentalis Applicata, 104: 137-142
  22. 22. Stadler, B., Dixon, A.F.G., Kindlmann, P. (2002) Relative fitness of aphids: effects of plant quality and ants. Ecology Letters, 5: 216-222
  23. 23. Hurley, J., Takemoto, H., Takabayashi, J. & McNeil, J.N. (2014) Host Plant Volatiles and the Sexual Reproduction of the Potato Aphid,Macrosiphum euphorbiaeInsects 5: 378-392
  24. 24. Dwivedi, S.A., Singh, R.S. & Gharde, S.K.(2018a) Populations build up of mustard aphid and their natural enemies in relation to biotic and abiotic factors, Plant Archives 18(2)2495-2500
  25. 25. Dwivedi, S.A., Gharde, S.K. & Singh R.S. (2018b) Biology of Mustard Aphid,Lipaphis erysimi(Kalt.) in Laboratory Condition, Annals of Biology 34 (2): 167-169
  26. 26. Guschina, I.A. & Harwood, J.L. (2006) Mechanisms of temperature adaptation in poikilotherms, Febs Letters, 580: 5477-5483
  27. 27. Loxdale, H.D. & Balog, A. (2018) Aphid specialism as an example of ecological-evolutionary divergence. Biological Reviews, 93: 642-57. 41
  28. 28. Rao, B.B., Rao, V.U.M., Nair, L., Prasad, Y.G. &Ramaraj, A.P. (2013) Assessing aphid infestation in Indian mustard (Brassica junceaL.) under present and future climate scenarios.BanglaJournal of Agricultural Research, 38: 373-387
  29. 29. Foote, N.E., Davis, T.S., Crowder, D.W., Bosque-Pérez, N.A., & Eigenbrode, S.D. (2017) Plant water stress affects interactions between an invasive and a naturalized aphid species on cereal crops. Environmental Entomology 46: 609-616
  30. 30. Liu, D., Dai, P., Li, S., Ahmed, S.S., & Shang, Z, (2018) Life-history responses of insects to water-deficit stress: a case study with the aphidSitobion avenae. Biomedical Chromatography Ecology, 18: 17
  31. 31. Liu, S. S., Wang, X. G., Wu, X. J., Shi, Z. H., Chen, Q. H. & Hu, H. X. (1997) Population fluctuation of aphids on crucifer vegetables inHangzhou suburbs. (Chinese)Acta AppliedEcology, 8: 510-514
  32. 32. Rana, J. (2005) Performance ofLipaphis erysimi(Homoptera: Aphididae) on DifferentBrassica Speciesin a Tropical Environment. Journal of Pesticide Science, 78: 155-160
  33. 33. Goggin, F. L. (2007) Plant-aphid Interactions: Molecular and Ecological Perspectives. Current Opinion,Plant Biology,10: 399-408
  34. 34. Fallahpour, F., Ghorbani, R., Nassiri Mahallati, M. & Hosseini, M. (2015) Demographic Parameters ofLipaphis erysimion Canola Cultivars under Different Nitrogen Fertilization Regimes, Journal of Agricultural Science Technology, 17: 35-47
  35. 35. Karimi-Malati, A., Fathipour, Y., Talebi, A. A. & Bazoubandi, M. (2014) Life Table Parameters and Survivorship ofSpodoptera exigua(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) at Constant Temperatures. Environmental Entomology, 43(3): 795-803
  36. 36. Nikooei, M., Fathipour, Y., Jalali Javaran, M. & Soufbaf, M. (2015) How Different Genetically Manipulated Brassica Genotypes Affect Life Table Parameters ofPlutella xylostella(Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 108(2): 515-524
  37. 37. Taghizadeh, R., Talebi, A. A., Fathipour, Y. & Khalghani, J. (2012) Effect of Ten Soybean Cultivars on Development and Reproduction of Lima Bean Pod Borer,Etiella zinckenella(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) under Laboratory Conditions. Applied Entomology & Phytopathology, 79(2): 15-28
  38. 38. Wittmeyer, J. L. & Coudron, T. A., (2001) Life Table Parameters, Reproductive Rate, Intrinsic Rate of Increase, and Estimated Cost of RearingPodisus maculiventris(Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) on an Artificial Diet. Journal of Economic Entomology, 94: 1344-1352
  39. 39. Akandeh, M., Kocheili, F., Soufbaf, M., Rasekh, A. & Mozafari, K. (2016) Effect of Canola Physical Mutation onPlutella xylostella(L.) Life table,Journal of AgricultureScience and Technology, 18: 985-998
  40. 40. Ebrahimi, N., Talebi, A. A., Fathipour, Y. & Zamani, A. A. (2008) Host Plants Effect on Preference, Development and Reproduction ofPlutella xylostella(L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) under Laboratory Conditions,Advances in EnvironmentalBiology, 2(3): 108-114
  41. 41. Fathi, S.A.A., Bozorg-Amirkalaee, M. and Sarfaraz, R.M. (2011a) Preference and Performance ofPlutella xylostella(L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) on Canola Cultivars. Journal of Pest Science, 84: 41-47
  42. 42. Fathi, S. A. A. (2010) Host Preference and Life Cycle Parameters ofChromatomya horticolaGoureau (Diptera: Agromyzidae) on Canola Cultivars. Munis Entomology and Zoology, 5: 247-252
  43. 43. Fathi, S. A. A., Gholami, F., NouriGanbalani, G. & Mohseni, A. (2011b) Life History Parameters of Thrips tabaci (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) on Six Commercial Cultivars of Canola. Applied Entomology of Zoology, 46: 505-510
  44. 44. Mirmohammadi, S., Allahyari, H., Nematollahi, M. R. & Saboori, A. R. (2009)Effect of Host Plant on Biology and Life Table Parameters ofBrevicoryne brassicae(Hemiptera: Aphididae). Annals of the Entomology Society of America, 102: 450-455
  45. 45. Ulusoy, M. R. & Olmez-Bayhan, S. (2006) Effect of certainBrassicaplants on biology of the cabbage aphidBrevicoryne brassicaeunder laboratory. Phytoparasitica 34(2):133-138
  46. 46. Roudposhti, S., Moravej, G. & Hosseini, M. (2012) Evaluation the Resistance of Different Brassica Species toLipaphis erysimiat Greenhouse Conditions, Plant Protection, 26(2): 224-230
  47. 47. Elzinga, D.A. & Jander, G. (2013) The role of protein effectors in plant–aphid interactions, Current opinion in plant biology 16(4): 451-456
  48. 48. Jaouannet, M., Rodriguez, P.A., Thorpe, P., Lenoir, C.J., MacLeod, R., Escudero-Martinez C. & Bos, J.I. (2014) Plant immunity in plant–aphid interactions, Frontiers in plant science 5: 663
  49. 49. Rodriguez, P.A. & Bos, J.I (2013) Toward understanding the role of aphid effectors in plant infestation, Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 26(1): 25-30
  50. 50. Giordanengo, P., Brunissen, L., Rusterucci, C., Vincent, C., van Bel, A, Dinant, S., Girousse, C., Faucher, M. & Bonnemain, J.L. (2010) Compatible plant–aphid interactions: how aphids manipulate plant responses? Comptes Rendus Biologies 333:516-523
  51. 51. Firake, D.M., Lytan, D., Behere, G.T., Thakur, N.S.A. (2012a) Host plants alter the reproductive behavior of cabbage butterfly,Pieris brassicae(Lepidoptera: Pieridae) and its endo-larval parasitoid,Hyposoter ebeninus(Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) in cruciferous ecosystems. Florida Entomology, 95(4): 905-913
  52. 52. Firake, D.M., Lytan, D., Behere, G.T. (2012b) Bio-diversity and seasonal activity of arthropod fauna inbrassicacrop ecosystems of Meghalaya, North East India. Molecular Entomology, 3(4): 18-22
  53. 53. Lytan, D. & Firake, D. M. (2012) Effects of different host plants and rearing atmosphere on life cycle of large white cabbage butterfly,Pieris brassicae(Linnaeus). Archies of Phytopathology and Plant Protection, 45: 1819-1825
  54. 54. Thubru, D.P., Firake, D.M. & Behere, G.T. (2016) Assessing risks of pesticides targeting lepidopteran pests in cruciferous ecosystems to eggs parasitoid,Trichogramma brassicae(Bezdenko).Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2016.04.007
  55. 55. Chandra, S. & Kushwaha, K.S.(1981) Management of aphid species infesting mustard, cabbage and cauliflower at Udaipur Ph.D thesis submitted to University of Udaipur
  56. 56. Dwivedi, S.A. & Singh, R.S. (2020) Synthetic Insecticides and Bio-pesticide Affect Natural Enemies of Aphid (Lipaphis erysimiKalt) in Mustard,Indian Journal of Agricultural Research10.18805/IJARe.A-5613
  57. 57. Rauf, M, Ehsan-ul-Haq Khan, J., Rehman, A., Gillani, W.A. & Ali, A. (2013) Biology and predatory potential ofCoccinella septempunctataLinn. onSchizaphis graminumaphid under controlled conditions. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research 26(2): 124-129
  58. 58. Sattar, M., Hamed, M., & Nadeem, S.(2008) Biology of Coccinella septempunctata Linn. (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and its predatory potential on cotton aphids, Aphis gossypii Glover (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 40(4): 239-242
  59. 59. Srivastava, A.S., Upadhay, K. D., Mishra, B.P. & Katiyar R.R. (1978) Prey preference ofCoccinella septempunctataL. (Coleoptera :Coccinellidae). Indian journal of Agricultural science48(2):84-86
  60. 60. Manpoong, N.S., Firake, D. M., Behere, G. T. & Rajesh T. (2016) Biological attributes and feeding potential of three dominant predators ofLipaphis erysimi(Kaltenbach), Journal of Biological Control, 30(3): 190-194,
  61. 61. Zhang Y.J. & Feng Y.S. (1983) Small scale rearing ofCoccinella SeptempunctataL. and the efficacy of field release. Natural enemies of pest5(2):97-99
  62. 62. Hong, B.M. &Hung H.Q. (2010) Effect of temperature and diet on the life cycle and predatory capacity ofEpisyrphus balteatus (De Geer) (Syrphidae: Diptera) cultured onAphis gossypii(Glover).Journal of the International Society for Southeast AsianAgricultural Sciences, 16(2): 98-103
  63. 63. Baskaran, R.K.M., Sasikumar, S., Rajavel, D.S. & Suresh, K. (2009) Biology and predatory potential of aphidophagous syrphid on guava aphid,Aphis gossypii(Glover) (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Journal of Biological Control, 23(1): 53-56
  64. 64. Romabai Devi, Y., Kalita, J., & Singh, T.K. (2011) Biological control potential of an aphidophagous syrphid,Episyrphus balteatus, De-Geer (Diptera: Syrphidae) on mustard aphid,Lipaphis erysimi(Kalt.) on cabbage ecosystem in Manipur.Journal of ExperimentalScience, 2(12): 13-16
  65. 65. Verma, J.S., Sharma, K.C., Sood A, Sood M. (2005) Biology and predatory potential of syrphid predators onAphis fabaeinfestingSolanum nigrumL. Journal of Entomology Research, 29(1): 39-41
  66. 66. Bakhetia, D.R.C. & Arora, R. (1986) Control of insect pests of toria, sarson and rai.Indian Farming36(4):41-44
  67. 67. Bakhetia, D.R.C. & Sekhon, B. S. (1989) Insect pests and their management in rapeseed-mustardJournal of Oilseeds Research6:269-273
  68. 68. Dixon, A.F.G. & Logan, M. (2016) Leaf size and availability of space to the sycamore aphidDrepanosiphum platanoides, Acta Oecologica Scandinavica 24: 58-63
  69. 69. Singh, P.K. & Premchand (1995) Yield loss due to mustard aphid,Lipaphis erysimi(Kalt.) in Eastern Bihar Plateau. Journal of Applied Zoological Research, 6:97-100
  70. 70. Srivastava, A. (1999) Effect of date of sowing and varieties on the incidence of mustard aphid,Lipaphis erysimi(Kalt.) on rapeseed-mustard. Journal of Oilseeds Research16(2): 380-381
  71. 71. Gupta, R.K. & Agrawal, N (2006) Management of mustard aphid,Lipaphis erysimiKalt. and mustard sawfly,Athalia proximaKlug. through different dates of sowing in mustard. Journal of Entomological Research,30(4): 325-327
  72. 72. Kumar, S., Atri, C., Sangha, M.K.& Banga S.S.(2011) Screening of wild crucifers for resistance to mustard aphid,Lipaphis erysimi(Kaltenbach) and attempt at introgession of resistance gene (s) fromBrassica fruticulosatoBrassica juncea. Euphytica. 179(3): 461-470
  73. 73. Choudhury, S., & Pal, S. (2009). Population dynamics of mustard aphid on different Brassica cultivars under terai agro-ecological conditions of West Bengal, Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences,1(1), 83-86
  74. 74. Dinesh Kumar & Singh, S.P.2012. Screening ofBrassicagermplasm for resistance to mustard aphid,Lipaphis erysimiKalt. based on pooled mean aphid infestation, Annals of Agri Bio Research; 17(2)93-96
  75. 75. Dwivedi, S. A., Singh, R. S. & Pragnabharathi, R (2019) The screening of mustard varieties resistance against mustard aphidLipaphis erysimiKalt, Plant Cell Biotechnology and Molecular Biology 20(9&10):397-408
  76. 76. Gupta, M.P., Verma, M.L., Churasia, S.K. (2003) Assessment of avoidable yield losses in Karan Rai varieties due to mustard aphid, Annals of Plant Protection Science, 11: 11-15
  77. 77. Banerjee, A., Datta, J.K. & Mondal, N.K. (2012) Biochemical changes in leaves of mustard under the influence of different fertilizers and cycocel. Journal of Agricultural Technology 8(4): 1397-1411
  78. 78. Jat, B.L. (2020) Evaluation of yellow sticky trap and imidacloprid 17.8% SL against mustard aphid on farmer’s field.Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika,(35):193-196
  79. 79. Singh, Y. P. & Sharma, K. C. (2009) Monitoring of alate mustard aphid,Lipaphis erysimi(Kalt) on yellow sticky traps and its relation to abiotic factors, Indian Journal of Applied Entomology 23(1) : 49-52
  80. 80. Singh, Y. P.& Nagar R. (2016) Monitoring of alate mustard aphid,Lipaphis erysimiKalt on yellow sticky traps, Indian Journal of Ecology 43(1):137-140
  81. 81. Faria, M.R & Wraight, S.P. (2007) Mycoinsecticides and Mycoacaricides: A comprehensive list with worldwide coverage and international classification of formulation types. Biological Control, 43: 237-256
  82. 82. Rehner, S.A. (2005) Phylogenetics of the insect pathogenic genusBeauveria. pp. 3-27. In: Insect-Fungal Associations: Ecology and Evolution, (Eds.): F.E. Vega and M. Blackwell, Oxford University Press London
  83. 83. Roberts, D.W. & St. Leger, R.J. (2004) Metarhizium spp., cosmopolitan insect-pathogenic fungi: Mycological aspects. Advances in Applied Microbiology, 54: 1-70
  84. 84. Asi, M.R., Bahir, M.H., Afzal, M. & Saqib (2009a) Effect of conidial concentration of entomopathogenic fungi on mortality of cabbage aphid,Brevicoryne brassicaeL.Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Science, 2: 175-180
  85. 85. Asi, M.R., Bashir, M.H., Mirza, J. H., Afzal, M. & Imran (2009b) In vitro efficacy of entomopathogenic fungi against cabbage aphid,Brevicoryne BrassicaeL. Pakistan Entomologist 31(1): 43-47
  86. 86. Khetan, S.K. (2001) Microbial pest control. Marcel Dekker, Inc. NY, USA
  87. 87. Meitkiewski, R.T., Pell, J.K. & Clark, S.J. (1997) Influence of pesticide use on the natural occurrence of entomopathogenic fungi in arable soils in the UK: Field and laboratory comparisons. Biocontrol Science Technology, 565-757
  88. 88. Pedro, M.O.J., Neves, E.H., Paulo, T.T. & Alcides, M.J.R. (2001) Compatibility of entomopathogenic fungi with neonicotinoid insecticides, Neotropical Entomology, 30(2): 263-268
  89. 89. Ahmed, S., Ashraf, M.R. & Hussain, A. (2009) Pathogenicity of isolates ofMetarhizium anisopliaefrom Gujranwala (Pakistan) againstCoptotermes heimi(Wasmann) (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae).Journal International of Agriculture and Biology, 11- 6: 707-711
  90. 90. Liz, J., Mampallil, M.H., Faizal, & Anith, K.N. (2017) Bacterial bioagents for insect pest management.Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies; 5(6):2237-2244
  91. 91. Srivastava, A. & Guleria, S. (2003) Evaluation of botanicals for mustard aphid,Lipaphis erysimi(Kalt.) control in Brassica,HimachalJournal of Agricultural ResearchVol.29(1&2):116-118
  92. 92. Chitra, K.C., Janardhan R., Kameswara, R. & Nagaiah, K. (1993) Field evaluation of certain plant products in the control of Brinjal pest complex. Indian Journal of Entomology 55 (3): 237-240

Written By

S.A. Dwivedi, Lelika Nameirakpam and Ajay Tomer

Submitted: September 13th, 2020 Reviewed: February 27th, 2021 Published: March 31st, 2021