MadrasAgric.J.,2024; https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.500011

111|7-9|

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Received: 08 Aug 2024

Revised: 21 Aug 2024

Accepted: 11 Sep 2024

*Corresponding author's e-mail: vinothkumar@tnau.ac.in

Evaluation of New Insecticides Against Tomato Fruit Borer,

Helicoverpa armigera Hubner

Vinothkumar Bojan* and Muralitharan V.

Department of Agricultural Entomology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore - 641 003, India

ABSTRACT

The survey was conducted to assess the pesticide use pattern

tomato and two field experiments were conducted to assess the

efficacy of new insecticide molecules against tomato fruit borer. The

results revealed that farmers used eighteen different insecticides

for the management of fruit borer in tomato and quinalphos,

chlorantraniliprole, flubendamide, chlorpyriphos, lambda cyhalothrin

and indoxacarb were found to be frequent used insecticide in tomato.

Among the insecticides tested, flubendiamide 480 SC registered

percent damage reduction of about 86.37 and 96.41 per cent &

cent percent and 99.6 per cent reduction of larval population over

untreated control in first and second experiment, respectively followed

by chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC at 30 g a.i.ha^-1, lambda cyhalothrin 5

EC @ 15 g a.i. ha^-1, indoxacarb 14.5 SC at 75 g a.i. ha^-1, chlorpyriphos

20 EC at 200 g a.i. ha^-1 and quinolphos 25 EC at 250 g a.i. ha^-1. The

harvest time residues of flubendiamide 480 SC at 48 g a.i. ha^-1were

at a below detectable levels in tomato fruit and soil samples collected

during the first harvest. Hence, flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g.ai. ha^-1 is

included as a best fit component in the integrated pest management

of fruit borers in tomato.

Keywords: Tomato, Flubendiamide, Survey, Bioefficacy, Residue, Fruit borer

INTRODUCTION

Tomato

(Solanum

lycopersicum

Linnaeus

Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) is one of the most

important and widely grown vegetable crops of both the

tropics and subtropics. It is originally a native of tropical

America from Peruvian and Mexican regions. This crop is

cultivated over an area of 0.84 million ha with an annual

production of 20.33 million tonnes and productivity of

24.2 tonnes per ha in India (Anonymous, 2022). The

crop was encountered by many insect pests, of which

tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera Hubner, was

recorded as a major pest causing huge economic loss

to tomatoes. Annual loss from this pest alone in various

agricultural and horticultural crops, is estimated as 2

billion US dollars (Hayden and Brambila, 2015). This

pest alone can cause up to 70 percent yield loss in

tomatoes (Wakil et al., 2018). The annual crop loss due

to H. armigera in India has been estimated at around

Rs. 2,000 crores (Pawar et al., 1999). The larva of

fruit borer feed on foliage, floral buds and flowers and

bores into fruits, thus making them unfit for human

consumption. Chemical insecticides are used as the

frontline defense sources against this pest. Most of

the insecticides used on agricultural crops belong

to a limited number of chemically different classes.

At present the usage of broad spectrum insecticides

like organophosphates, carbamates and synthetic

pyrethroids were more to manage the pests of

tomato. Indiscriminate use of pesticides leads to the

development of resistance in pests against pesticides,

pest resurgence and bioconcentrations of pesticide

residues in consumable produce at harvest (Armes et

al., 1994). However, chemical pesticides continue to

be the mainstay of most of the economically important

insect pest control programme. At the same time,

MadrasAgric.J.,2024; https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.500011

111|7-9|

to overcome the above mentioned problems, the

identification of new chemical molecules with higher

insecticidal properties, lower mammalian toxicity and

lower dosage application with the selective mode of

action fits well in the integrated pest management

concept. Hence, in the management of pests with

chemical insecticides, resistance has often been a

problem or a potential problem and one of the most

essential reasons why insecticides with a new mode of

action have been desired. With the above background,

research work was carried out to study the efficacy of

new insecticide molecules against tomato fruit borer

H. armigera and the harvest time residue of effective

insecticide used in tomato.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A detailed survey on pesticide usage pattern in

tomato was undertaken at Coimbatore district of

Tamil Nadu. The information on pesticide use pattern

was gathered from 25 progressive farmers from

Thondamuthur block. An interview schedule was

prepared and used for the collection of data. The

objectives and scope of the study were first explained

to farmers for their fair cooperation. Even though the

farmers of the study area did not maintain any records,

they were able to furnish necessary information by

memory recall and virtue of their experience.

Two field experiments were conducted to evaluate

the bioefficacy of commonly used insecticides

against fruit borer in tomato in two different places

viz., Naraseepuram (Experiment I) and Mathambatti

(Experiment II) near Thondamuthur, Coimbatore district

in randomized block design (RBD). The experiment

was carried out with seven treatments viz., quinolphos

25 EC @ 250 g.ai. ha^-1, chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC @

30 g.ai. ha^-1, flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g.ai. ha^-1,

chlorpyriphos 20 EC @ 200 g.ai. ha^-1, lambdacyhathrin

5 EC @ 15 g.ai. ha^-1, indoxacarp 14.5 SC @ 75 g.ai.

ha^-1 and untreated check. All the treatments were

replicated three times with a plot size of 25 m². Two

rounds of spray were given in 15 days interval starting

from the fruit initiation stage. The observations on fruit

borer damage and larval population were recorded

as pretreatment counts before spraying and post

treatment count at 7 and 14 days after each spraying.

The number of larvae was recorded on five randomly

selected plants per plot, and the fruit damage was

assessed based on a number of fruits with boreholes

and total number of fruits in five randomly selected

plants per plot and expressed as percent fruit damage.

Sampling of tomato (2 kg) was done from the plots

treated with flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g a.i. ha^-1

and untreated control plots during the first harvest

and samples were transported to the laboratory and

processed immediately. The time interval between last

spraying and first harvest was 18 days in the first trial

and 22 days in the second trial. The samples were

processed by adopting modified QuEChERS (Quick,

Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged and Safe) method

(Anastassiades et al., 2003). The reference standards

of flubendiamide (99.6 % purity) were purchased from

M/S Sigma Aldrich, Bangalore, India. Stock solutions

(1000 μg mL^-1) of flubendiamide standard was prepared

by dissolving 24.30 mg of analyte in 25 mL acetonitrile

(v/v) in separate volumetric flasks. An intermediate

stock solution of 100 and 10 μg mL^-1 and working

standard solutions (0.05 to 1 μg mL^-1) were prepared

by serial dilution method. These working standards

were used to determine the retention time of these

compounds and for the quantitative determination of

residues in samples. Recovery studies were carried out

in order to establish the reliability of the method. The

estimation of flubendiamide residues were performed

by LCMS (Shimadzu, series 2020) equipped with diode

array detector (SPD-M20A), degasser (DGU-20 A5R)

and an autosampler (SIL-30AC). Chromatographic

separation was achieved with reverse phase C18

column, 250 mm x 4.6 id x 5 µ particle size in a

column oven, at 40°C. The isocratic elution condition

employed a mobile phase of acetonitrile and 5 mM

ammonium acetate (50:50) with a flow rate of 1 mL

min^-1 and the injection volume was 10 µL. Nitrogen

gas was used as both nebulizer and collision gas. The

drying gas flow rate was 15 L min^-1 and nebulizing gas

flow rate was 1.5 L min^-1. The Desolvation Line (DL)

temperature was 250°C and heat block temperature

was 400°C. The ions were monitored at positive SIM

(Single Ion Monitoring) mode with an ESI (Electrospray

Ionization) interface. The instrument parameters were

controlled by LC Solutions software. The target ion

mass, wavelength of maximum absorbance (ʎ max)

and retention time for flubendiamide were 223 g mol^-

1, 215 nm and 1.52 minutes, respectively. The amount

of residue was determined by comparing the sample

response with the response of standard by using the

formula, Residues (ppm) = As/Astd x Wstd/Ws x Vs/

Asj, where, As - Peak area of the sample; Astd - Peak

area of the standard; Wstd - Weight of the standard in

MadrasAgric.J.,2024; https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.500011

111|7-9|

ng; Ws - Weight of the sample in g; Vs - Volume of the

sample (final extract in mL); Asj - Aliquot of the sample

injected in mL.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of survey conducted to assess the

pesticide use pattern tomato revealed that cent per

cent of the farmers were used power operated sprayer

for insecticide application. Nearly 76 percent farmers

spray 7 to 10 rounds of pesticides to control the fruit

borer alone. Regarding the spraying interval, sixty

eight per cent of the farmers, followed 5 to 10 days

of spraying interval (Table 1). Totally eighteen different

insecticides were used by farmers for the management

of fruit borer in tomato. It includes quinalphos (92

%), chlorantraniliprole (88 %), flubendamide (88

%), chlorpyriphos (84 %), lambda cyhalothrin (84

%), indoxacarb (80 %), emamectin benzoate (72 %),

triazophos (72 %), fipronil (68 %), bifenthrin (68 %),

spinosad (60 %), thiodicarb (56 %), dimethoate (52 %),

profenofos (48 %), thiacloprid (36 %), cyantraniprole

(36 %), noraluron (36 %) and carbaryl (24 %). Among

these, quinalphos, chlorantraniliprole, flubendamide,

chlorpyriphos, lambda cyhalothrin and indoxacarb

usage was found to be maximum (Table 1). Current

finding is in accordance with the results of Rauf et al.,

(2004), Sandur, (2004) and Mazlan and Mumford,

(2005) who reported that, farmers in Malaysia, India

and Indonesia often sprayed up to eleven types of

insecticides per season, with spray intervals of 2 to

3 days on Brassica vegetables. The surveys in Kenya

and Zimbabwe (Oruku and Ndungu, 2001; Sithole,

2005) revealed that there was an overwhelming

reliance on broad-spectrum insecticides (pyrethroids,

organophosphates, and carbamates), often applied

weekly or biweekly.

Table 1. Survey on pesticide use pattern to control fruit borer in tomato at Coimbatore

Details

(Collected from 25 Farmers)

Coimbatore

Number

Percentage

Number of Spraying

> 10 Nos.

7-10 Nos.

76.0

5 - 7 Nos.

20.0

< 5 Nos.

04.0

Sprayer used

Power sprayer

100.0

Hand sprayer

0.0

Frequency of spraying

3 to 5 days

32.0

5 to 10 days

68.0

Insecticides used

Quinalphos

92.0

Chlorantraniliprole

88.0

Flubendamide

88.0

Chlorpyriphos

84.0

Lambda cyhalothrin

84.0

Indoxacarb

80.0

Emamectin benzoate

72.0

Triazophos

72.0

Fipronil

68.0

Bifenthrin

68.0

Spinosad

60.0

Thiodicarb

56.0

Dimethoate

52.0

Profenofos

48.0

Thiacloprid

36.0

Cyantraniprole

36.0

Noraluron

36.0

Carbaryl

24.0

MadrasAgric.J.,2024; https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.500011

111|7-9|

The results of the field experiment (Experiment 1)

showed the damage per cent due to bollworm complex

before imposing treatments ranged from 18.26 to

19.45 (Table 2). After first round of application the

highest mean per cent reduction was recorded in

plots treated with flubendiamide 480 SC at 48 g

a.i. ha^-1 (67.20%) over untreated check followed by

chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC at 30 g a.i. ha^-1 (65.72%)

and lowest was recorded in quinolphos 25 EC @ 250

g a.i. ha^-1 (51.38 %) treated plots. After second round

of application, flubendiamide 480 SC at 48 g a.i. ha^-1

registered a mean reduction of 86.37 per cent damage

over untreated check followed by chlorantraniliprole

18.5 SC at 30 g a.i. ha^-1 (86.21%), lambda cyhalothrin

5 EC @ 15 g a.i. ha^-1 (79.08%), indoxacarb 14.5 SC at

75 g a.i. ha^-1 (78.30%), chlorpyriphos 20 EC at 200

g a.i. ha^-1 (71.80%) and quinolphos 25 EC at 250 g

a.i. ha^-1 (72.99 %) (Table 2). The larval population of

H. armigera before imposing treatments ranged from

8.61 to 9.67 larvae per five plants (Table 3). There was

a significant reduction in the larval population after

spraying flubendiamide 480 SC. On the seventh day

after treatment (DAT), the lowest larval population was

recorded in plots sprayed with flubendiamide 480 SC

at 4860 g a.i. ha^-1 (1.13 larvae/ five plants) followed

by chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC at 30 g a.i. ha^-1 (1.39

larvae/ five plants), indoxacarb 14.5 SC at 75 g a.i.

ha^-1 (2.09 larvae/ five plants) and lambda cyhalothrin

5 EC @ 15 g a.i. ha^-1 (2.42 larvae/ five plants) and

the highest larval population was observed in the

plots treated with quinolphos 25 EC at 250 g a.i.

ha^-1 (4.11 larvae/ five plants) and chlorpyriphos 20

EC at 200 g a.i. ha^-1 (4.37 larvae/ five plants) found

to be on par with each other among each other,

whereas, untreated check recorded 11.33 larvae

per five plants. After 14 DAT, flubendiamide 480 SC

at 48 and chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC at 30 g a.i.

ha^-1 recorded 82.90 and 80.40 percent reduction in

larval population when compared to the untreated

check. After the second round of application, at

7 DAT, flubendiamide 480 SC at 48 g a.i. ha^-1 and

chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC at 30 g a.i. ha^-1 were found

be more effective than other treatments recording

0.00 and 0.08 larvae per five plants, respectively,

whereas, untreated check recorded the highest of

12.81 larvae per five plants. After two rounds of spray,

Table 2. Effect of insecticides on fruit damage in tomato (Experiment 1)

S. No

Treatments

Percent damage

I spray

II spray

PTC

7 DAT

14 DAT

Mean % ROC

7 DAT

14 DAT

Mean % ROC

Quinolphos 25 EC

@ 250 g a.i.ha^-1

18.26

10.48

(18.89)^c

8.57

(17.02)^d

9.53

51.38

7.15

(5.51)^c

4.96

(12.87)^c

6.06

72.99

Chlorantraniliprole18.5 SC

@ 30 g a.i.ha^-1

18.63

7.28

(15.65)^a

6.15

(14.36)^a

6.72

65.72

4.25

(11.90)^a

1.93

(7.99)^a

3.09

86.21

Flubendiamide 480 SC

@ 48 g a.i.ha^-1

19.35

6.98

(15.32)^a

5.87

(14.02)^a

6.43

67.20

3.85

(11.32)^a

2.26

(8.65)^a

3.06

86.37

Chlorpyriphos 20 EC

@ 200 g a.i.ha^-1

19.45

10.87

(19.25)^c

8.15

(16.59)^cd

9.51

51.45

7.56

(15.96)^c

5.08

(13.03)^c

6.32

71.80

Lambdacyhalothrin 5 EC

@ 15 g a.i.ha^-1

19.12

8.18

(16.62)^b

7.57

(15.97)^b

7.88

59.80

5.16

(13.13)^b

4.22

(11.85)^b

4.69

79.08

Indoxacarb 14.5 SC

@ 75 g a.i.ha^-1

18.45

8.45

(16.90)^b

7.80

(16.22)^bc

8.13

58.52

5.55

(13.60)^b

4.18

(11.80)^b

4.87

78.30

Untreated check

18.63

19.15

(25.95)^d

20.03

(26.59)^e

19.59

21.65

(27.73)^d

23.18

(28.78)^d^22.42

*Mean of four replications; ROC- Reduction over control; PTC- Pretreatment count; DAT - Days after Treatment;

Figures in parentheses are arc sin transformed values; In a column means followed by a common letter are not

significantly different by DMRT (P=0.05)

MadrasAgric.J.,2024; https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.500011

111|7-9|

Table 3. Effect of test chemicals on fruit borer larvae in tomato (Experiment 1)

S. No Treatments

Population (Number per 5 plants)

I spray

II spray

PTC

7 DAT

14 DAT Mean % ROC 7 DAT 14 DAT Mean % ROC

Quinolphos 25 EC

@ 250 g a.i.ha^-1

8.98

4.11

(2.15)^e

5.25

(2.40)^d

4.68

60.37

3.34

(1.96)^c

4.85

(2.31)^f

4.10

64.44

Chlorantraniliprole18.5 SC

@ 30 g a.i.ha^-1

8.61

1.39

(1.37)^a

3.24

(1.93)^a

2.32

80.40

0.08

(0.76)^a

0.12

(0.79)^a

0.10

99.13

Flubendiamide 480 SC

@ 48 g a.i.ha^-1

8.91

1.13

(1.28)^b

2.91

(1.85)^a

2.02

82.90

0.00

(0.71)^a

0.00

(0.71)^b

0.00

100.00

Chlorpyriphos 20 EC

@ 200 g a.i.ha^-1

9.52

4.34

(2.20)^e

5.40

(2.43)^cd

4.87

58.76

3.08

(1.89)^c

4.51

(2.24)^e

3.80

67.04

Lambdacyhalothrin 5 EC

@ 15 g a.i.ha^-1

9.67

2.42

(1.71)^d

3.31

(1.95)^b

2.87

75.74

0.96

(1.21)^b

1.91

(1.55)^d

1.44

87.54

Indoxacarb 14.5 SC

@ 75 g a.i.ha^-1

9.09

2.09

(1.61)^c

3.29

(1.95)^bc

2.69

77.22

1.09

(1.26)^b

1.62

(1.46)^c

1.36

88.23

Untreated check

9.33

11.33

(3.44)^f

12.29

(3.58)^e

11.81

0.00

12.81

(3.65)^d

10.22

(3.27)^g^11.52

0.00

*Mean of four replications; ROC- Reduction over control; PTC- Pretreatment count; DAT - Days after Treatment;

Figures in parentheses are

5.0

x +

transformed values; In a column means followed by a common letter are

not significantly different

by DMRT (P=0.05)

flubendiamide 480 SC at 48 g a.i. ha^-1 recorded a

cent percent reduction of the larval population of

H. armigera over the untreated check (Table 3).

The results of field experiment 2 revealed that,

the pretreatment damage was in the range of 10.23

to 12.92 per cent (Table 4). Among the chemicals

tested, flubendiamide 480 SC at 48 g a.i. ha^-1 was

found to be the most effective treatment recording a

mean per cent damage reduction of 52.15 and 96.42

per cent after first and second rounds of spraying,

respectively followed by chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC

at 30 g a.i. ha^-1, lambda cyhalothrin 5 EC @ 15 g a.i.

ha^-1, indoxacarb 14.5 SC at 75 g a.i. ha^-1 registered a

mean per cent reduction of 95.12, 91.30 and 90.87

per cent damage after two applications over untreated

check, respectively. The pretreatment population of

H. armigera varied from 6.32 to 7.53 larvae per five

plants (Table 5). After first round of spray, among the

insecticidal treatments, the highest reduction was

recorded by flubendiamide 480 SC at 48 g a.i. ha^-1

(83.49%) treated plots followed by chlorantraniliprole

18.5 SC at 30 g a.i. ha^-1, indoxacarb 14.5 SC at 75

g a.i. ha^-1 and lambda cyhalothrin 5 EC @ 15 g a.i.

ha^-1 recorded a mean per cent population reduction

of 82.87, 78.50 and 76.82 per cent over untreated

check, respectively. The build up of H. armigera

population at 14 DAT necessitated the second spray.

After two rounds of spray, flubendiamide 480 SC at 48

g a.i. ha^-1 registered 99.60 mean per cent reduction

over control and the lowest per cent reduction was

observed in the plots treated with quinolphos 25 EC

at 250 g a.i. ha^-1 (72.07 %). Flubendiamide 480 SC

at 48 g a.i. ha^-1 was registered statistically superior

compared to other insecticidal treatments (Table 5).

The results of the field experiments on tomato

revealed that flubendiamide 480 SC effected marked

reduction in the per cent damage caused by fruit borer

as well as the reduction of population of H. armigera

larvae over untreated check. Narayana and Rajasri

(2006), Kuttalam et al., (2008) and Kubendran et. al.,

(2008) reported that flubendiamide at 50 and 100 g

a.i. ha^-1was found to be effective against H. armigera

compared to standard checks of spinosad and

indoxacarb. Effectiveness of flubendiamide 480 SC in

checking the population and damage of diamond back

MadrasAgric.J.,2024; https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.500011

111|7-9|

Table 4. Effect of insecticides on fruit damage in tomato (Experiment 2)

S. No Treatments

Percent damage

I spray

II spray

PTC

7 DAT

14 DAT

Mean % ROC

7 DAT

14 DAT

Mean % ROC

Quinolphos 25 EC

@ 250 g a.i.ha^-1

10.48

8.98

(17.43)^c

6.42

(14.67)^b

7.70

45.25

4.19

(11.81)^f

3.35

(10.54)^f

3.77

78.21

Chlorantraniliprole18.5 SC

@ 30 g a.i.ha^-1

11.48

7.23

(15.59)^a

6.45

(14.71)^ab

6.84

51.37

1.28

(6.49)^b

0.41

(3.67)^b

0.85

95.12

Flubendiamide 480 SC

@ 48 g a.i.ha^-1

10.23

7.45

(15.83)^a

6.01

(14.19)^a

6.73

52.15

1.01

(5.76)^a

0.23

(2.74)^a

0.62

96.42

Chlorpyriphos 20 EC

@ 200 g a.i.ha^-1

10.25

8.23

(16.67)^b

6.86

(15.18)^bc

7.55

46.36

3.23

(10.35)^e

2.86

(9.73)^e

3.05

82.40

Lambdacyhalothrin 5 EC

@ 15 g a.i.ha^-1

12.36

7.21

(15.57)^a

7.06

(15.40)^bc

7.14

49.27

2.03

(8.19)^c

0.98

(5.68)^d

1.51

91.30

Indoxacarb 14.5 SC

@ 75 g a.i.ha^-1

11.90

6.98

(15.31)^a

7.38

(15.76)^c

7.18

48.95

2.35

(8.81)^d

0.81

(5.16)^c

1.58

90.87

Untreated check

12.92

13.85

(21.84)^d

14.28

(22.02)^d^14.07

0.00

16.78

(24.18)^g

17.82

(24.96)^g^17.30

*Mean of four replications; ROC- Reduction over control; PTC- Pretreatment count; DAT - Days after Treatment;

Figures in parentheses are arc sin transformed values; In a column means followed by a common letter are not

significantly different by DMRT (P=0.05)

Table 5. Effect of test chemicals on fruit borer larvae in tomato (Experiment 2)

S. No Treatments

Population (Number per 5 plants)

I spray

II spray

PTC

7 DAT

14 DAT Mean % ROC 7 DAT

14 DAT Mean % ROC

Quinolphos 25 EC

@ 250 g a.i.ha^-1

7.21

3.29

(1.95)^c

3.42

(1.98)^d

3.36

58.19

2.01

(1.58)^f

2.23

(1.65)^f

2.12

72.07

Chlorantraniliprole18.5 SC

@ 30 g a.i.ha^-1

6.75

1.19

(1.30)^a

1.56

(1.44)^a

1.38

82.87

0.05

(0.74)^b

0.19

(0.83)^b

0.12

98.42

Flubendiamide 480 SC

@ 48 g a.i.ha^-1

6.32

1.29

(1.34)^a

1.36

(1.36)^b

1.33

83.49

0.02

(0.72)^a

0.04

(0.73)^a

0.03

99.60

Chlorpyriphos 20 EC

@ 200 g a.i.ha^-1

7.46

3.52

(2.00)^c

3.85

(2.09)^e

3.69

54.08

1.87

(1.54)^e

1.98

(1.57)^e

1.93

74.64

Lambdacyhalothrin 5 EC

@ 15 g a.i.ha^-1

6.79

1.49

(1.41)^b

2.23

(1.65)^c

1.86

76.82

0.41

(0.95)^c

0.72

(1.10)^c

0.57

92.56

Indoxacarb 14.5 SC

@ 75 g a.i.ha^-1

7.53

1.59

(1.45)^b

1.86

(1.54)^d

1.73

78.50

0.68

(1.09)^d

0.82

(1.15)^d

0.75

90.12

Untreated check

6.86

7.56

(2.84)^d

8.49

(3.00)^f

8.03

0.00

8.26

(2.96)^g

6.92

(2.72)^g

7.59

0.00

*Mean of four replications; ROC- Reduction over control; PTC- Pretreatment count; DAT - Days after Treatment;

Figures in parentheses are

5.0

x +

transformed values; In a column means followed by a common letter are

not significantly different

by DMRT (P=0.05)

MadrasAgric.J.,2024; https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.500011

111|7-9|

Table 6. Harvest time residues of flubendiamide 480 SC in tomato fruits

Treatments

Residues of flubendiamide 480 SC (in mg g^-1)

Fruits

Soil

I picking

II picking

I picking

II picking

Experiment 1

Flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g a.i.ha^-1

BDL

Control

BDL

Experiment 2

Flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g a.i.ha-1

BDL

Control

BDL

BDL - Below detectable level

moth in cabbage was confirmed by Vinothkumar et al.,

(2007). Vinothkumar et al., (2010) reported that, ready

mixture formulation of flubendiamide + thiacloprid

480 SC @ 50 g a.i. ha^-1 was effectively checking the

population of H. armigera in cotton. This shows that

newer insecticides are effective even at lower doses.

The study on harvest time residues of flubendiamide

480 SC at 48 g a.i. ha^-1 in tomato revealed that the

minimum detection limit of the instrument was 0.01

mg g^-1. The limit of detection (LOD) for the tomato

fruit and soil samples was 0.015 mg g^-1 and the limit

of quantification was 0.05 mg g^-1 considering the

weight of the sample as 10 g for tomato fruit and

soil samples, and final volume of the extract was 1

mL. The standard chromatogram of flubendiamide

is presented in Fig.1. The mean recovery was 92.15

percent from samples fortified at 0.05, 0.25 and 0.5 mg

g^-1 levels. The harvest time residues of flubendiamide

480 SC at 48 g a.i. ha^-1were at below detectable level

in tomato fruit and soil samples collected during first

harvest (Table 6). Present result is in accordance

with the finding of Thilagam (2005), who reported the

residues of flubendiamide 480 SC in cotton lint, seed,

oil and soil at below detectable levels at the time of

harvest similarly flubendiamide 480 SC applied at 30

and 60 g a.i. ha^-1 left residues at BDL in rice grains,

husk, and straw and soil samples (Thilagam 2005).

CONCLUSION

Tomato fruit borer is the major pest of tomato,

farmers use eighteen different insecticides to check

the population and damage caused by H. armigera.

Quinalphos,

chlorantraniliprole,

flubendamide,

chlorpyriphos, lambda cyhalothrin and indoxacarb

were found to be maximum use in tomato ecosystem.

Among all, flubendiamide 480 SC effected a marked

reduction in the percent damage caused by fruit

borer as well as the reduction of the population of

H. armigera larvae over an untreated check without

leaving any residue in the harvested product. Hence,

flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g.ai. ha^-1 is included as

best fit component in the integrated pest management

of fruit borers in tomato.

Funding and Acknowledgment

The authors acknowledge the support provided

to the authors in terms of men and materials by

Department of Agricultural Entomology, Tamil Nadu

Agricultural University, Coimbatore for conducting this

study.

Ethics statement

No specific permits were required for the described

field studies because no human or animal subjects

were involved in this research.

Originality and plagiarism

The authors assure that the contents were written

by us and were not plagiarized.

Consent for publication

All the authors agreed to publish the content.

Competing interests

There were no conflict of interest in the publication

of this content

Data availability

All the data of this manuscript are included in the

MS. No separate external data source is required. If

anything is required from the MS, certainly, this will be

extended by communicating with the corresponding

author through corresponding official mail.

MadrasAgric.J.,2024; https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.500011

111|7-9|

Author contributions

Idea conceptualization – BVK; Experiments – BVK

and VM; Guidance - BVK, Writing original draft - VM;

Writing - reviewing & editing – BVK, VM.

REFERENCES

Anastassiades, M., Lehotay, S.J., Stajnbaher, D. and

F.J. Schenck. 2003. Fast and easy multiresidue

method

employing

acetonitrile

extraction/

partitioning

and

“dispersive

solid-phase

extraction” for the determination of pesticide

residues in produce. J. of AOAC international,

86(2), 412- 431. DOI:10.1093/jaoac/86.2.412

Anonymous, 2022. Agricultural Statistics at a Glance.

Economics & Statistics Division, Department

of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Ministry of

Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of

India. 262 p.

Armes, N.J., Banerjee, S.K., DeSouza, K.R., Jadhav,

D.R., King, A.B.S., Kranthi, K.R., Regupathy,

A., Surulivelu, T. and N. Venugopal Rao. 1994.

Insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armigera in

India: Recent developments. In: Proceedings of

the Brighton Crop Protection Conference - Pests

and Diseases, Thronton Heath, UK, British Crop

Protection Council Publications. 437-442. http://

oar.icrisat.org/4723/

Hayden J.E. and J. Brambila. 2015. Helicoverpa

armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), the Old-

World Bollworm. Pest Alert No. FDACS-02039.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer

Services, Florida, USA, https://www.aphis.usda.

gov/sites/default/files/alert-old-world-bollworm.

pdf

Kubendran, D., Chandrasekaran, S., Vinothkumar,

B and S. Kuttalam. 2008. Assessment of

phytotoxicity and compatibility of flubendiamide

480 SC with other agrochemicals. Pestology,

32(10): 65 – 68. https://www.researchgate.net/

publication/297958731

Kuttalam. S, Vinothkumar, B., Kumaran, N and N.

Boomathi. 2008. Evaluation of bioefficacy

of flubendiamide 480 SC against fruit borer

Helicoverpa armigera Hub. in tomato. Pestology,

32(3);

13-16.

https://www.researchgate.net/

publication/292683218

Mazlan, N., and J. Mumford. 2005. Insecticide use in

cabbage pest management in the Cameron

Highlands, Malaysia. Crop Protection, 24, 1, 31-

39. DOI: 10.1016/j.cropro.2004.06.005.

Narayana, S.L. and M. Rajasri. 2006. Flubendiamide

20 WDG (RIL-038) - A new molecule for

the

management

American

bollworm

Helicoverpa armigera on cotton. Pestology,

30(11):

16-17.

https://www.researchgate.net/

publication/292668351.

Oruku, L. And B. Ndungu. 2001. Final socio-economic

report for the periurban vegetable IPM thematic

cluster. CABI Africa Regional Centre Report,

Nairobi, 49 pp.

Pawar, B.Y., Nakat, R.V., Mehetre, S.T. and S.B. Kharbade.

1999. Management of pod borer Helicoverpa

armigera (Hub.). on chickpea. Pestology., 23(4):

15-17

Rauf, A., Prijona, D., Dadang and D.A. Russell. 2004.

Survey of pest control practices of cabbage

farmers in W. Java, Indonesia. Report for

Collaboration

Insect

Management

for.

Brassicas in Asia and Africa (CIMBAA). 76p.

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28292.83840

Sandur, S.K. 2004. Study of the implications of

Diamondback moth control for Indian vegetable

farmers. Report for Collaboration on Insect

Management for. Brassicas in Asia and Africa

(CIMBAA). 92p

Sithole, R. 2005. Life history parameters of Diadegma

mollipla

(Holmgren),

competition

with

Diadegma semiclausum Hellen (Hymenoptera:

Ichneumonidae) and spatial and temporal

distribution of the host, Plutella xylostella (L.)

and its indigenous parasitoids in Zimbabwe. PhD

thesis, University of Harare, Zimbabwe.

Thilagam, P. 2005. Evaluation of flubendiamide 480 SC

against bollworm complex in cotton and leaf

folder and stem borer in rice. Unpublished Ph.

D. Thesis. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,

Coimbatore, India. 232 p.

Vinothkumar, B, Boomathi, N., Kumaran, N and S.

Kuttalam. 2010. Combination of Flubendiamide

+ Thiacloprid 480 SC (RM) against bollworms

and sucking pests of cotton. Madras Agricultural

Journal,

(4-6):

157-160.

https://www.

researchgate.net/publication/337898618

Vinothkumar, B., Srinivasan, T., Kumaran, N and S.

Kuttalam. 2007. Evaluation of flubendiamide

480 SC against diamond back moth (Plutella

xylostella L.) in cabbage. Pestology, 31(11);

–

51.

https://www.researchgate.net/

publication/294684215