MadrasAgric.J.,2024; https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.500023

111|7-9|

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Received: 26 Aug 2024

Revised: 06 Sep 2024

Accepted: 18 Sep 2024

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

Diversity, Morphological Identification and Management of

Mirid Bug Species Complex in Cotton Crop

K. Senguttuvan¹, M. Murugan¹and M. Shanthi²

1 Department of Agricultural Entomology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore

2 Centre for Plant Protection studies, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore

ABSTRACT

The emergence of mirid bugs as primary pests in Bt cotton fields

poses significant challenges to cotton productivity in India. Mirid bug

species such as Creontiades biseratense (Distant), Campylomma livida

Reuter, and Hyalopeplus linefer Walker have gained prominence due to

favourable conditions created by reduced pesticide applications in Bt

cotton fields. This study focussed on morphological characterization of

mirid bug species complex in Tamil Nadu cotton ecosystem. The study

evaluated the efficacy of seven newer insecticides against the mirid bug,

Creontiades biseratense, a significant pest of cotton, in two experiments

conducted at TNAU Cotton Farm, Coimbatore district and Memathur,

Virudhachalam, Cuddalore district, during Kharif 2022 and 2023.

Treatments included Spinetoram 11.7 SC, Flonicamid 50 WG, Dinotefuran

20 SG, Thiamethoxam 25 WG, Clothianidin 50 WG, Imidacloprid 17.8 SL

and Acetamiprid 20 SP. Spinetoram demonstrated the highest efficacy,

reducing the pest population by 80.83% in Experiment I and 75.07% in

Experiment II, followed by Flonicamid and Dinotefuran. Lower efficacy

was observed with Imidacloprid and Acetamiprid, with reductions

below 60%. Yield and economic analysis highlighted Spinetoram as the

most cost-effective treatment, achieving the highest yields (2346 kg/

ha in 2022 and 2248 kg/ha in 2023) and cost-benefit ratios (CBR) of

2.74 and 2.51, respectively. Flonicamid and Dinotefuran also provided

favourable returns, while traditional neonicotinoids like Imidacloprid

exhibited declining performance, likely due to resistance development.

Keywords: Cotton - Mirid bugs, species diversity, Creontiades biseratense, morphology, environmental

correlation, IPM, insecticides

INTRODUCTION

Cotton (Gossypium spp.) is one of the most

important cash crops worldwide, and in India, it plays

a vital role in the agricultural economy. Adopting

Bt cotton has significantly reduced the impact of

bollworm pests; however, it has inadvertently allowed

secondary pests like mirid bugs to flourish, especially

in areas with decreased pesticide application (Patil et

al., 2005; Qiu, 2010). Mirid bugs primarily damage

cotton by feeding on tender plant tissues, leading to

square and boll shedding, which can cause substantial

yield losses Rohini Sugandhi and Patil (2009). This

study aims to identify the mirid bug species complex

in Tamil Nadu, analyse their morphological traits,

examine their population dynamics, and explore their

correlation with environmental factors. Moreover,

this study evaluates the effectiveness of different

MadrasAgric.J.,2024; https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.500023

111|7-9|

insecticides in controlling mirid populations to provide

comprehensive IPM strategies.

Mirid Bug Complex in Cotton Ecosystems

Mirid bugs, particularly Creontiades biseratense

(Distant), Campylomma livida Reuter and Hyalopeplus

linefer Walker are increasingly recognized as primary

pests in Bt cotton fields due to the ecological shift

in pest dynamics (Udikeri, 2008; Jane, 2010). The

incidence of mirid bugs is heightened in Bt cotton

fields, where insecticides targeting bollworms are

less frequently used, leading to reduced insecticide

pressure on non-target pests (Kranthi et al., 2009).

Nature of Damage

Both nymphs and adults of C. biseratense cause

significant damage to cotton plants, particularly due

to their damage on squares (flower buds) and tender

bolls. The damage is primarily caused by the piercing-

sucking feeding behaviour of the mirid bugs, which

target vital plant structures such as ovules and pollen

sacs (AICRP, 2021). The following are the key signs

of mirid infestation: Circular discoloration: The base

of flowers and squares show circular discoloration,

often due to piercing injury; Feeding scars: The tissue

that has been pierced by the mirid bugs turns black,

resulting in visible scars on the affected area; Square

and boll shedding: Heavy mirid infestation lead to

shedding of small squares and deformed bolls, which

are often referred to as “parrot beaking.” This occurs

due to a lack of fertilization, as the feeding damages

the developing anthers; Tender boll damage: Tender

bolls develop black patches on the outer surface of

the boll rind, resulting in boll shedding. Economic

losses: The damage caused by mirid bugs is severe

enough to reduce cotton yields by up to 60% in some

regions, especially when the pest is left uncontrolled.

While older bolls are less susceptible to mirid damage

due to the hardening of the boll walls, the damage to

younger, tender bolls is much more pronounced and

often leads to significant yield losses (Ayyar, 1932).

Morphological Identification Techniques

Morphological features, including body colour,

wing characteristics and genitalia, are essential for

differentiating mirid species. Microscopic examination

of genitalia is often necessary for precise identification

due to the high morphological similarity among

species, particularly in C. biseratense and H. linefer

(Udikeri et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2016).

Insecticide Efficacy and IPM Approaches

Recent studies emphasize the importance of

selecting effective insecticides for IPM strategies in

managing mirid populations in cotton (Kumar et al.,

2018). For instance, Flonicamid and Spinetoram have

shown promising results in controlling mirid bugs while

maintaining favourable economic returns for cotton

farmers (Meena et al., 2020).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Area and Sampling Method

The study was conducted in the cotton-growing

districts of Tamil Nadu, including Coimbatore, Erode,

Salem, Attur, Perambalur and Kallakurichi. Surveys

were conducted during the square and boll formation

stages across three fields per district. Five plants

in each field were selected for mirid population

assessment. Six fields were selected at each location,

Nagrare et al., (2016)

Morphological Identification

Morphological identification involved examining

key features such as colour morphs, wing structure

and body size. Genitalia was cleared using a 10%

potassium hydroxide solution and examined under a

microscope for species differentiation as detailed in

Udikeri et al., (2010). Measurements were recorded

using a Lyca microscope and illustrations were made

with the help of Image analyser.

Insecticide Efficacy Trials

The efficacy of eight insecticides was tested

over three spray applications in two major cotton-

growing regions during Kharif 2022 and Kharif 2023.

Efficacy was measured by population reduction and

yield impact, while economic returns were assessed

through cost-benefit ratio (CBR) calculations.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Species Diversity and Morphology

Surveys revealed that C. biseratense was the

dominant mirid bug species, followed by C. livida and

H. linefer. Morphological markers, including colour

patterns, wing margins and body dimensions, helped

distinguish among the species. C. biseratense showed

a pronounced brown and green morph, while H.

linefer exhibited distinct pronotal streaks, facilitating

identification.

MadrasAgric.J.,2024; https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.500023

111|7-9|

Each of the three species, Creontiades biseratense,

Campylomma livida, and Hyalopeplus lineifer, exhibit

distinct morphological characteristics that aid in their

identification. Creontiades biseratense adults are

typically brown and are marked by a distinct dark brown

T-shaped band on the pronotum. This species shows

variation in colour morphs, with brown and green being

the most common forms. The nymphs of C. biseratense

are characterized by their greenish coloration and dark

brown wing pads, which are unique to this species.

Campylomma livida adults are notably smaller than

C. biseratense and are often pale in colour. This

species is further distinguished by its diminutive size,

fringed wing margins, and a characteristic dioptic eye

structure. Hyalopeplus lineifer is recognized primarily

by the brownish parallel streaks on the pronotum

in adults. This species is larger than C. livida and

comparable in size to C. biseratense. The nymphs of

H. lineifer have a creamish yellow coloration and are

noted for their long antennae and wing pads. These

morphological differences provide a reliable basis for

identifying and differentiating these three species in

field and laboratory studies.

Insecticide Efficacy and Economic Analysis

Effect of New Insecticides on Mirid Bug

Population

The study revealed the significant impact of newer

insecticides on controlling C. biseratense populations

in cotton fields at two distinct locations: TNAU Cotton

Farm, Coimbatore (Experiment I), and Memathur,

Virudhachalam, Cuddalore (Experiment II). The results

demonstrated variations in insecticide efficacy, influenced

by factors like formulation, dosage, and environmental

conditions.

Experiment I (Coimbatore)

Pooled data analysis (Table 1) showed that

Spinetoram 11.7 SC was the most effective insecticide,

reducing the cumulative mean pest population by

80.83%, followed by Flonicamid 50 WG (77.54%) and

Dinotefuran 20 SG (75.42%). Thiamethoxam 25 WG

(71.41%) and Clothianidin 50 WG (75.21%) provided

moderate control. In contrast, Imidacloprid 17.8 SL and

Acetamiprid 20 SP showed lower efficacy, with reductions

of 58.20% and 54.22%, respectively. Untreated control

plots consistently exhibited the highest pest population.

Experiment II (Cuddalore)

In Memathur, similar efficacy trends were observed

(Table 2). Spinetoram 11.7 SC provided the highest

cumulative reduction (75.07%), followed by Flonicamid

50 WG (72.71%) and Dinotefuran 20 SG (70.98%).

Thiamethoxam 25 WG and Clothianidin 50 WG exhibited

moderate efficacy with reductions of 66.11% and 69.97%,

respectively. Imidacloprid 17.8 SL and Acetamiprid

20 SP again showed reduced performance, achieving

reductions of 51.14% and 47.48%, respectively.

Yield and Economic Analysis

The impact of insecticides on cotton yield and cost-

benefit ratios (CBR) was assessed during Kharif 2022

and Kharif 2023. Spinetoram 11.7 SC consistently

resulted in the highest yields and economic returns,

making it the most profitable treatment.

Experiment I (Coimbatore)

Spinetoram 11.7 SC provided the highest yield (2346

kg/ha) and a CBR of 2.74 (Table 3). Flonicamid 50 WG and

Dinotefuran 20 SG followed closely with yields of 2230

kg/ha and 2220 kg/ha, respectively, and CBR values of

2.62 and 2.61. Imidacloprid 17.8 SL and Acetamiprid 20

SP yielded significantly lower returns, with CBRs of 1.76

and 1.66, respectively.

Experiment II (Cuddalore)

Similar trends were noted during Kharif 2023

(Table 4). Spinetoram 11.7 SC recorded the highest yield

(2248 kg/ha) and a CBR of 2.51, followed by Flonicamid

50 WG (2135 kg/ha; CBR 2.27) and Dinotefuran 20

SG (2050 kg/ha; CBR 2.10). Imidacloprid 17.8 SL and

Acetamiprid 20 SP were again less economical, with CBR

values of 1.43 and 1.27, respectively.

The superior efficacy of Spinetoram aligns with

findings by Dharajothi et al. (2011), who emphasized

its effectiveness in reducing sucking pests in cotton

ecosystems. Similarly, the efficacy of Flonicamid

against mirid bugs corroborates observations by Mehta

and Kulshrestha (2016), who reported its success in

controlling populations even under varying climatic

conditions. The efficacy of Dinotefuran is also supported

by Nagrare et al., (2016), who highlighted its potential in

integrated pest management (IPM) strategies.

Conversely, the reduced efficacy of Imidacloprid

and Acetamiprid may indicate the onset of resistance,

as noted in studies by Kranthi et al., (2009), where

over-reliance on older neonicotinoids led to diminished

pest control. Such findings stress the need for rotating

insecticides with different modes of action to prevent

MadrasAgric.J.,2024; https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.500023

Table 1. Effect of new insecticides against Mirid bug, C. biseratense on cotton - Experiment I (Location : Cotton Farm, TNAU, Coimbatore)

Treatments

Dosage

(g a.i. ha^-1)

Formulation

Dosage (g or ml

/ha)

I Spray

II Spray

III Spray

Pooled

Cumulative

Mean

population

plant^-1

% reduction

from control

Mean

population

plant^-1

% reduction

from control

Mean

population

plant^-1

% reduction

from control

Mean

population

plant^-1

% reduction

from control

Thiamethoxam 25 WG

200 g

3.32b

(1.95)

47.24

1.38bc

(1.37)

42.22

0.82d

(1.15)

43.80

1.84c

(1.53)

71.41

Dinotefuran 20 SG

150 g

3.13b

(1.91)

50.93

1.07b

(1.25)

46.54

0.62e

(1.06)

30.28

1.61bc

(1.45)

75.42

Flonicamid 50 WG

150 g

2.98a

(1.87)

52.55

0.90ab

(1.18)

47.95

0.45c

(0.97)

45.21

1.44b

(1.39)

77.54

Spinetoram 11.7 SC

420 g

2.73a

(1.80)

56.52

0.68a

(1.09)

51.07

0.28d

(0.88)

43.94

1.23a

(1.32)

80.83

Clothianidin 50 WG

100

200 g

3.08a

(1.89)

51.46

1.12bc

(1.27)

45.83

0.63de

(1.06)

33.17

1.61bc

(1.45)

75.21

Imidacloprid 17.8 SL

125 ml

3.15b

(1.91)

49.90

2.93ab

(1.85)

48.11

1.98a

(1.57)

57.58

2.69d

(1.79)

58.20

Acetamiprid 20 SP

100 g

3.23b

(1.93)

48.57

3.27c

(1.94)

44.18

2.33b

(1.68)

54.40

2.94e

(1.85)

54.22

Untreated control

6.48c

(2.64)

0.00

6.78d

(2.70)

0.00

6.63f

(2.67)

0.00

6.63f

(2.67)

0.00

- Figures in the parentheses are

transformed values

- In a column, means followed by same letter(s) are not significantly different at P=0.05 by DMRT.

MadrasAgric.J.,2024; https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.500023

Table 2. Effect of new insecticides against Mirid bug, C. biseratense on cotton - Experiment II (Location : Memathur, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore)

Treatments

Dosage

(g a.i. ha^-1)

Formulation

Dosage (g or

ml /ha)

I Spray

II Spray

III Spray

Pooled

Cumulative

Mean

population

plant^-1

reduction

from

control

Mean

population

plant^-1

reduction

from

control

Mean

population

plant^-1

% reduction

from control

Mean

population

plant^-1

reduction

from

control

Thiamethoxam 25 WG

200 g

4.38g

(2.21)

41.08

1.77c

(1.51)

39.97

1.07e

(1.25)

30.07

2.41e

(1.71)

66.11

Dinotefuran 20 SG

150 g

3.98d

(2.12)

46.05

1.43bc

(1.39)

42.77

0.72b

(1.10)

43.62

2.04c

(1.59)

70.98

Flonicamid 50 WG

150 g

3.80b

(2.07)

49.68

1.35b

(1.36)

43.26

0.75b

(1.12)

43.80

1.97b

(1.57)

72.71

Spinetoram 11.7 SC

420 g

3.62a

(2.03)

51.75

1.17a

(1.29)

48.24

0.57a

(1.03)

50.46

1.78a

(1.51)

75.07

Clothianidin 50 WG

100

200 g

4.13e

(2.15)

45.38

1.53bc

(1.42)

42.38

0.83c

(1.15)

42.99

2.16d

(1.63)

69.97

Imidacloprid 17.8 SL

125 ml

3.90c

(2.10)

47.97

3.65d

(2.04)

31.42

2.93d

(1.85)

38.46

3.49f

(2.00)

51.14

Acetamiprid 20 SP

100 g

4.15f

(2.16)

44.22

3.90e

(2.10)

28.40

3.13cd

(1.91)

39.87

3.73g

(2.06)

47.48

Untreated control

7.38h

(2.81)

0.00

6.95f

(2.73)

0.00

6.80f

(2.70)

0.00

7.04h

(2.75)

0.00

- Figures in the parentheses are

transformed values

- In a column, means followed by same letter(s) are not significantly different at P=0.05 by DMRT.

MadrasAgric.J.,2024; https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.500023

Table 3. Cost economics of insect management in cotton, Coimbatore

Treatment

Active Ingredient

Dosage (g a.i/ha)

Formulation Dosage

(g or ml /ha)

Yield (Kg

ha^-1)

Rate/Kg

(Rs.)

Gross returns (Rs.)

Total Expenditure

(Rs.)

Net Return

(Rs.)

CBR

Thiamethoxam 25 WG

200 g

1848

71.20

1,31,577.60

43,840

87,738

2.00

Dinotefuran 20 SG

150 g

2220

71.20

1,58,064.00

43,790

1,14,274

2.61

Flonicamid 50 WG

150 g

2230

71.20

1,58,776.00

43,815

1,14,961

2.62

Spinetoram 11.7 SC

420 g

2346

71.20

1,67,035.20

44,706

1,22,329

2.74

Clothianidin 50 WG

100

200 g

1921

71.20

1,36,775.20

45,129

91,646

2.03

Imidacloprid 17.8 SL

125 ml

1712

71.20

1,21,894.40

44,229

77,665

1.76

Acetamiprid 20 SP

100 g

1643

71.20

1,16,981.60

44,029

72,953

1.66

Untreated control

1220

71.20

86,864.00

43,506

43,358

1.00

*Average price of Cotton: Rs.71.20 per kg as per Regulated Market, Avinashi, Coimbatore

Table 4. Cost economics of insect management in cotton, Cuddalore

Treatment

Active Ingredient

Dosage (g a.i/ha)

Formulation Dosage

(g or ml /ha)

Yield (Kg

ha^-1)

Rate/Kg

(Rs.)

Gross returns (Rs.)

Total Expenditure

(Rs.)

Net Return

(Rs.)

CBR

Thiamethoxam 25 WG

200 g

1980

62.50

1,23,750.00

42,578

81,172

1.91

Dinotefuran 20 SG

150 g

2050

62.50

1,28,125.00

41,356

86,769

2.10

Flonicamid 50 WG

150 g

2135

62.50

1,33,437.50

40,782

92,656

2.27

Spinetoram 11.7 SC

420 g

2248

62.50

1,40,500.00

40,035

1,00,465

2.51

Clothianidin 50 WG

100

200 g

2060

62.50

1,28,750.00

41,982

86,768

2.07

Imidacloprid 17.8 SL

125 ml

1685

62.50

1,05,312.50

43,275

62,038

1.43

Acetamiprid 20 SP

100 g

1567

62.50

97,937.50

43,156

54,782

1.27

Untreated control

1164

62.50

72,750.00

36,304

36,446

1.00

*Average price of Cotton: Rs.62.50 per kg as per Regulated Market, Cuddalore

MadrasAgric.J.,2024; https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.500023

111|7-9|

resistance development. The yield advantages of

Spinetoram and Flonicamid are consistent with findings

by Rohini Sugandhi and Patil (2009), who reported that

newer insecticides not only control pests effectively

but also enhance yields through better crop health.

Patil et al. (2006) also documented higher net returns

when newer-generation insecticides were integrated

into pest management strategies. Additionally, the cost-

effectiveness of Spinetoram and Dinotefuran supports

earlier recommendations, emphasizing their compatibility

with sustainable agricultural practices (Khan, 2003).

The relatively lower returns from Imidacloprid and

Acetamiprid align with observations by Patil et al., (2005),

where traditional neonicotinoids showed declining

efficacy, likely due to pest adaptation (Khan et al., 2004).

The results highlight the importance of rotating

insecticides with diverse modes of action to mitigate

resistance development and ensure sustained pest

control. Combining Spinetoram and Flonicamid in

IPM programs could optimize pest suppression while

preserving non-target organisms, a strategy supported

by Kumar et al., (2018) in their studies on the efficacy of

novel insecticides.

Spinetoram 11.7 SC, Flonicamid 50 WG, and

Dinotefuran 20 SG emerged as the most effective

treatments against C. biseratense, ensuring substantial

pest suppression, higher yields, and favourable

economic returns. These findings validate their

integration into IPM programs for cotton ecosystems.

The study also emphasizes the need for climate-adaptive

pest management strategies to sustain efficacy and

profitability in cotton cultivation.

REFERENCES

AICRP Annual Report. (2021). All India Coordinated

Research Project on Cotton. Ministry of

Agriculture, Government of India.

Ayyar, J. V. R. (1932)-Insects affecting the cotton plant in

India. Madras Agril Dept Bulletin 28: 1-28.

Dharajothi B., Sonai Rajan T., Nagrare V.S, Amutha M.,

Rishi Kumar & Surulivelu T. 2011 Influence of

spatial cropping pattern of cotton cultivation

population

dynamics

mirid

bug,

Creantiades biseratense(Distant) World Cotton

Research Conference-5 edited by Kranthi

K.R.,Venugopalon M. V., Balasubryamanya R.H,

Kranthi S., Singh S. B. Excel India Publishers

New Delhi 210-215

Jane, Q. (2010). Mirid bug outbreaks in Bt cotton fields in

China drive farmers back to pesticides. Nature,

466(7305), 558-559. DOI: 10.1038/466558a

Khan, M. (2003) -Salt mixtures for mirid management.

The Australian Cotton Grower 24: 10.

Khan, M., Kelly, D., Hickman, M., Mensah, R., Brier, H.,

and Wilson, L. (2004)-Mirid ecology in Australian

cotton.www.csiro.org

Kranthi, K. R., Jadhav, D. R., Waghmare, V. N., Kranthi,

S., & Narayane, S. D. (2009). Pesticide-free

cotton ecosystem and mirid bug proliferation.

Indian Journal of Entomology, 67(3), 215–223.

DOI: 10.5958/0974-8172.2009.00038.0

Kumar, A., Sharma, R., Patel, V., Singh, T., & Verma, P.

(2018). Efficacy of novel insecticides on cotton

pests. Pest Management Science, 74(5), 1032–

1040. DOI: 10.1002/ps.4740

Meena, B. K., Singh, R. K., Rathore, Y., Tripathi,

A., & Chauhan, M. (2020). Integrated pest

management in cotton crops. Agricultural

Reviews, 41(1), 121–130. DOI: 10.18805/ag.R-

5100

Mehta, A., & Kulshrestha, R. (2016). Cotton mirid bug

populations and climatic factors. Environmental

Entomology, 45(4), 904–911. DOI: 10.1093/ee/

nvw085

Nagrare V S, Deshmukh A J, Dharajothi B, Amutha

M, Kumar Rishi, Kranthi S and Kranthi K R.

2016. Sampling methodology for assessing

field population of mirid, Campylomma livida

infesting cotton. Indian Journal of Plant

Protection, 44 (2): 250-250. DOI: 10.5958/0974-

2670.2016.00060.0

Patil, B. V., Bheemanna, M., Patil, S. B., Udikeri, S. S.,

and Hosaman, I. (2006)-A record of mirid bug

Creontiades biseratense (Distant) on cotton from

Karnataka., India. Insect Environ. 11: 176-77.

Patil, B. V., Hegde, M., Deshmukh, S. P., Bhat, S., &

Mahesh, K. (2005). Emerging pests in Bt cotton

fields in India. Indian Journal of Entomology,

67(3),

201–208.

DOI:

10.5958/0974-

8172.2005.00029.0

Rohini Sugandhi, S., & Patil, B. V. (2009). Emerging insect

pests in Bt cotton and their management. Pest

Management in Horticultural Ecosystems, 15(1),

70-75. DOI: 10.5958/0974-2670.2009.00038.0