J. Asia-Pacific Entomol.

10(1): 6974 (2007)

www.entomology.or.kr

1&45 ."/"(&.&/5

Frpelqlqj Shvw Uhshoohqw Sodqwv dqg Elrshvwlflghv iru

Vxvwdlqdeoh Shvw Pdqdjhphqw lq Fklqhvh Ndoh
Supawan Kianmatee* and S.L. Ranamukhaarachchi

Agricultural Systems and Engineering, School of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Institute of Technology,
Pathumthani 12120, Thailand

Abstract The objective of this investigation was to Lqwurgxfwlrq

study the use of pest repellent plant (PRP) species
and biopesticides for sustainable pest management in
Although chemical pesticides have been beneficial
Chinese kale (Brassica oleracea L. var. alboglabra
in crop protection, relying totally on synthetic pesti-
Bailey). Ten selected treatments composed of three
cides has resulted in unintended and unforeseen
PRP species namely citronella grass - (CG) [Cymbo-
problems, not only in developing insect resistant to
pogon nardus L. (Rendle)], sweet basil - (SwB) (Oci-
insecticides, but also other problems such as bringing
mum basilicum L.) and sacred basil - (SaB) (Ocimum
up secondary pest outbreaks and polluting the overall
sanctum L.)] were intercropped with Chinese kale,
environment (Jamornmarn, 2000). The increased use
integrated with two commonly used biopesticides, viz.
of pesticides for control of crop pests has caused
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and neem extract (Azadi-
health hazards to the consumers due to their long
rachta indica) and a control were tested in a ran-
persisting residues, inherent toxicity and biomagni-
domized complete block design (RCBD) with 3 repli-
ficance of pesticide residues in human body over a
cates. The insect pest species infested in Chinese kale
period of time (Awasthi, 2001). Hence, it is necessary
and their populations, % pest damage, fresh weight
to regulate the build up of pesticide residues in food
and quality of yield were investigated. The results
chain. There is also economic need for such regulation
showed that diamondback moth - (DBM) [Plutella
in view of quality control on pesticide residues in
xylostella (Linnaeus)] density was lowest in CG alone,
growing export of vegetables into the global market
CG+SaB, SwB+biopesticides and SaB+biopesticides,
(Awasthi, 2001). Dissathaporn et al. (2002) indicated
relatively low in SwB alone, CG+SaB+SwB, and
that pesticide residue has been an enormous problem
CG+biopesticides, and moderate in biopesticides and
in which restricts the export-oriented production
sacred basil alone, and highest in the control. The
systems. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to
densities of common cutworm - (CCW) [Spodoptera
minimize the pesticide residue problem when pro-
litura (Fabricius)], cabbage webworm - (CWW) [Hel-
ducing vegetables for external markets.
lula undalis (Fabricius)] and flea beetle - (FBT) (Phyl-
Chinese kale (Brassica oleracea L. var. alboglabra
lotreta sinuata Steph.) were not significantly different
Bailey) is one of the most commonly grown as well
among treatments. The overall pest damage was lowest
as intense pest attractive crops, which is mostly vulner-
in CG+biopesticides treated plots followed by SwB+
able to diamondback moth [Plutella xylostella (Lin-
biopesticides, SaB+biopesticides and biopesticides
naeus)], beet armyworm [Spodoptera exigua (Hbner)],
alone, and CG+biopesticides gave the best quality of
common cutworm [Spodoptera litura (Fabricius)], cab-
yield of Chinese kale, and hence such combinations
bage looper (Trichoplusia ni Hbner), cabbage web-
could be integrated for managing crucial insect pests,
worm [Hellula undalis (Fabricius)] and leaf eating
i.e. DBM and to minimize/avoid the use of highly
beetle (Phyllotreta chontanica Duvivier and P. sinuata
toxic synthetic pesticides in Chinese kale.
Steph.) (Kianmeesuk et al., 1999). As Chinese kale
is grown throughout the year and farmers often use
Key words Citronella grass, Sweet basil, Sacred basil, highly toxic insecticides to control insect pests, the
Bacillus thuringiensis, Neem extract insects may develop resistance to insecticides, and
in such a situation demanding the use of higher con-
*Corresponding author. centration of insecticides than safe recommended
Email: sukianmatee@yahoo.com doses. This further leads to pesticide contamination
Tel: +66-2-5799547; Fax: +66-2-5799547 of water, air and overall environment and pesticide
(Received July 4, 2006; Accepted March 20, 2007) residue in crops. In Thailand, the pesticide residue
70 J. Asia-Pacific Entomol. Vol. 10 (2007)
in vegetables including Chinese kale was found since
1982 to 2003 (Frauke, 1997; Anon, 2004).
The development of pest control methods that can
minimize the use of pesticides is required for pest
management. Metcalf and Luckmann (1982) reported
that one of integrated pest management (IPM) tools
used for safe pest management was using pest repel-
lent plants. Furthermore, use of pest-resistant crops
and varieties, adoption of cultural practices that pre-
vent build up of pests, use of cropping system such
as crop rotation, intercropping, etc., and the use of
biopesticides and semiochemicals, etc. for pest control
were reported by Weel and Wulp (1999).
Zehnder (2004) indicated that some plants con-
tained organic substances that act as pest repellents
which keeping pests away from crops and avoiding
potential damage. One of the examples is the use of
garlic to repel Japanese beetles, aphids, vegetable
weevils and spider mites (Zehnder, 2004). Further-
more, basil (Ocimum spp.) help to repel tomato horn-
worms, and marigolds repelled cucumber beetles and
nematodes (Zehnder, 2004).
The use of biopesticides, i.e. pesticidal substances
found in plants, can also provide effective and ecologi-
cally sound solutions to pest problems. Biopesticides
are known to be effective in controlling pests that
have developed resistance to chemical pesticides, leave
little or no toxic residues and are commonly harmless
to beneficial insects and other non-target organisms
(Harris and Dent, 1999). In vegetables, Bacillus thu-
ringiensis (Bt) is recommended to use for controlling
of insects caterpillar including diamondback moth,
armyworm and cabbage looper (Dissathaporn et al.,
2002). Neem (Azadirachta indica) is found to be active
against a large number of pests, including diamond-
back moth, thrips and aphids (Anon, 2003).
The purpose of the present investigation was to
study the use of pest repellent plant species and
biopesticides for sustainable pest management in
Chinese kale in order to minimize the use of highly
toxic synthetic pesticides and their residue in both
food and environment.
Pdwhuldov dqg Phwkrgv
The study was conducted during December 2005
- March 2006 at the Agricultural Systems Experi-
mental Station, Asian Institute of Technology, Thai-
land. This experiment was a follow up study of
screening and evaluating fourteen pest repellent plant
(PRP) species initially chosen based on literature and
farmers experience for integrating into Chinese kale
culture for developing an IPM for pesticide-free kale
production. Three PRP species including citronella
grass - (CG) [Cymbopogon nardus L. (Rendle)], sweet
basil - (SwB) (Ocimum basilicum L.) and sacred basil
- (SaB) (Ocimum sanctum L.)] were eventually selected
for incorporating into Chinese kale culture as an
intercrop to further assess and confirm their pest
repellent nature observed in previous studies. Further-
more, two commonly used biopesticides, i.e. Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) and neem extract (Azadirachta
indica) were also integrated to enhance the overall
pest management in Chinese kale. Ten treatments
combining PRPs, Bt and neem extract (viz. 1) CG
alone, 2) SwB alone, 3) SaB alone, 4) CG+SaB, 5)
CG+SaB+SwB, 6) CG+ Bt+neem, 7) SwB+Bt+neem,
8) SaB+Bt+neem, and 9) Bt+neem) were tested
together with a control (Chinese kale alone) in a
randomized complete block design (RCBD) with 3
replicates.
Selected PRPs were first grown in polyethylene
bags in December 2005 and reared in a nursery. The
land was prepared in a conventional manner, i.e.
ploughing once, harrowing twice and then raised beds
of 4 m 6 m were prepared in late January 2006.
Chicken manure was applied on raised beds at the
rate of 6.25 tons/ha and mixed with soils. Selected
PRPs were transplanted on plots with 2 m 1 m
row spacing (one plant per hill and ten plants per
plot) in early February 2006. In plots assigned to the
combination of CG+SaB, five plants each of citronella
grass and sacred basil were planted alternatively,
whereas in CG+SaB+SwB plots, four plants each of
citronella grass and sacred basil, and two plants of
sweet basil were planted alternatively in a way to
cover the plot area. Bt and neem applications were
made after emergence of Chinese kale plants in
corresponding plots as per treatments. One day after
planting PRPs, seeds of Chinese kale variety (BBT35)
were sown in the rest of the plot area at a rate of
12.5 kg/ha and covered with rice straw. Plots were
regularly irrigated twice a day using sprinklers. Excess
seedlings were thinned out at four weeks after sowing.
The crop was managed as per Thailand Department
of Agricultural Extension recommendation. Two
weeks after sowing, N, P and K were broadcasted
at the rate of 100, 43 and 83 kg/ha, respectively. The
commercial preparation of neem extract (Azadirachtin
0.1% W/V SL) was applied once a week from two
weeks after sowing onwards until harvest, while Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) Var. Aizawai (Potency 32,000 IU/mg
4% WP) was applied when diamondback moth popula-
tion showed an increase. The synthetic insecticides
were not applied to any plot nor to other crops in
the experimental station as non-pesticide methods are
usually practiced.
The data on insect pest species and their populations
were recorded at 19, 26 and 33 days after sowing.
Each plot was divided into twenty-quadrants (1 m2
 Pest repellent plants biopesticides 71

per quadrant) leaving a border area and randomly
selected five Chinese kale plants from each quadrant
were used for observations. Percentage pest damage,
fresh weight and quality of Chinese kale were collected
at harvest. Chinese kale was harvested for yield using
a sampling quadrate of 1m 1 m placed at 3 different
locations within each plot. The quality was assessed
on 10 randomly selected plants from each plot by
estimating % leaf area eaten using 0-5 scale [0 - no
apparent damage; 1 - minor feeding damage (1% leaf
area eaten); 2 - minor-moderate feeding damage
(2-5% leaf area eaten); 3 - moderate damage (6-10%
leaf area eaten); 4 - moderate-heavy damage (11-30%
leaf area eaten); and 5 - heavy damage (>30% leaf
area eaten)] (Greene et al., 1969).
Data on insect pest population were analyzed using
GLM procedure, while pest damage (%) was arcsine-
transformed, and ANOVA was performed. Fishers
Protected Least Significant Difference (LSD=0.05)
was employed to compare treatment means (Steel and
Torrie, 1980). ANOVA was directly used for data
on fresh weight of Chinese kale.
Uhvxowv dqg Glvfxvvlrq
Qxpehu ri Shvwv
The insect pest species found in Chinese kale plots
were diamondback moth (DBM - P. xylostella), com-
mon cutworm (CCW - S. litura), cabbage webworm
(CWW - H. undalis) and flea beetle (FBT - P. sinuata)
throughout the growing season. Among the insect pests,
DBM density was significantly different among treat-
ments at 33 DAS (p=0.042) (Table 1). The number
of DBM was highest in the control treatment (0.15
insects per 5 plants), lowest in CG, CG+SaB, SwB+
biopesticides and SaB+biopesticides (0.02 insects per
5 plants), relatively low in SwB, CG+SaB+SwB, and
CG+biopesticides (0.03 insects per 5 plants), and
moderate in biopesticides (0.07 insects per 5 plants)
and sacred basil (0.10 insects per 5 plants). At 19
and 26 DAS, DBM population was relatively low,
and there was no significant difference among treat-
ments existed. The results showed that both PRPs
as well as their combination with Bt and neem extract
could significantly reduce the number of DBM larvae,
compared to control and plots received biopesticides
alone. This indicates that biopesticides alone would
not ensure the satisfactory control of DBM and PRPs
could widen the scopes of managing DBM together
with biopesticides.
Although not significant among treatments, the CCW
population was highest at 33 DAS and the density
ranged from 5.77 insects per 5 plants in biopesticide
treatment to 21.07 insects per 5 plants in control
(Table 2). The density of CCW was relatively low
in CG+biopesticides (7.25 insects per 5 plants), SaB+
biopesticides (12.48 insects per 5 plants) and SwB+
biopesticides (12.88 insects per 5 plants) and the rest
of treatments had relatively high densities (more than
15 insects per 5 plants). The result showed that the
combining PRPs with biopesticides showed better
control of larvae than PRPs alone.

Table 1. The mean number of diamondback moth larvae observed in Chinese kale plots at 19, 26 and 33 days after sowing
Insect pests infested, no./5 plants
Treatment 1)
19 DAS 26 DAS 33 DAS
2)
1. Control 0.050.05 0.000.00 0.150.10a 3)
2. Citronella grass (CG) 0.020.03 0.020.03 0.020.03c
3. Sweet basil (SwB) 0.130.14 0.000.00 0.030.03bc
4. Sacred basil (SaB) 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.100.05ab
5. CG+SaB 0.030.06 0.000.00 0.020.03c
6. CG+SaB+SwB 0.050.05 0.000.00 0.030.03bc
7. CG+biopesticides 0.050.05 0.020.03 0.030.03bc
8. SwB+biopesticides 0.000.00 0.020.03 0.020.03c
9. SaB+biopesticides 0.050.09 0.020.03 0.020.03c
10. Biopesticides 0.050.05 0.050.09 0.070.06bc
LSD (p=0.05) ns4) ns 0.082
CV% 128.7 217.2 98.6
1)
Days after sowing
2)
No pest repellent plant used, and only Chinese kale was grown
3)
Values within a column followed by different letters are significantly different at p=0.05
4)
ns - Not significantly different at p=0.05
72 J. Asia-Pacific Entomol. Vol. 10 (2007)

Table 2. The mean number of common cutworm, cabbage webworm larvae and flea beetle adults observed in Chinese kale
plots at 19, 26 and 33 days after sowing

Insect pests infested, no./5 plants

Common cutworm Cabbage webworm Flea beetle
Treatment
(CCW) (CWW) (FBT)
1)
26 DAS 33 DAS 19 DAS 26 DAS 19 DAS 26 DAS 33 DAS
2)
1. Control 10.007.36 21.074.09 0.280.32 0.080.08 0.720.37 0.470.20 0.550.56
2. Citronella grass (CG) 1.121.85 20.789.34 0.180.20 0.120.06 0.600.41 0.400.33 0.570.19
3. Sweet basil (SwB) 3.552.43 18.027.36 0.130.06 0.120.08 0.700.36 0.280.33 0.330.25
4. Sacred basil (SaB) 8.529.39 16.2813.59 0.120.10 0.120.12 0.230.13 0.120.03 0.080.06
5. CG+SaB 6.553.06 18.7310.38 0.070.06 0.100.05 0.730.57 0.270.08 0.320.15
6. CG+SaB+SwB 8.736.73 15.9714.54 0.070.06 0.070.08 0.370.06 0.280.14 0.230.10
7. CG+biopesticides 5.936.04 7.254.05 0.070.03 0.070.03 0.520.38 0.330.20 0.300.26
8. SwB+biopesticides 1.020.76 12.8817.57 0.070.11 0.020.03 0.400.09 0.330.06 0.200.00
9. SaB+biopesticides 6.785.82 12.483.81 0.080.10 0.020.03 0.680.28 0.250.23 0.350.23
10. Biopesticides 3.971.35 5.772.25 0.070.08 0.050.05 0.830.42 0.530.26 0.500.52
3)
LSD (p=0.05) ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
CV% 88.3 61.7 125.4 78.9 59.6 65.2 79.0
1)
Days after sowing
2)
No pest repellent plant used, and only Chinese kale was grown
3)
ns - Not significantly different at p=0.05

There were no significant differences in the number
of CWW larvae among treatments (Table 2). The
number of larvae was highest at 19 DAS. The control
had 0.28 larvae per 5 plants, while there was a great
reduction in CG+SaB, CG+SaB+SwB, CG+biopesti-
cides, SwB+biopesticides, SaB+biopesticides and bio-
pesticides alone. At 26 DAS too, there was a reduction
of CWW larvae, and combinations of PRPs and bio-
pesticides i.e. SwB+biopesticides and SaB+biopesticides
gave better results than control, PRPs and biopesti-
cides alone. This shows that CWW larvae can be sup-
pressed/repelled by combining PRPs as well as their
combination with biopestcides.
The number of FBT was not significantly different
among treatments (Table 2). Nevertheless, the number
of FBT adults was lowest in sacred basil treatment
at 19, 26 and 33 DAS whereas the highest numbers
of insect were found in biopesticides treatment at 19
and 26 DAS. Moreover, the combinations of PRPs
and biopesticides gave better control of FBT when
compared to control and biopesticides alone. It is
likely that biopesticides alone cannot suppress FBT
population without combining with PRPs.
Shvw Gdpdjh
The percent pest damage at harvest was signifi-
cantly different among treatments (p=0.002) (Table 3).
Overall pest damage was lowest in CG+biopesticides
treatment (33.3%) followed by SwB+biopesticides
(46.7%), SaB+biopesticides (56.7%) and biopesticides
alone (56.7%). The pest damage was highest in the
control treatment (86.7%), which suggests that PRPs
and biopesticides can significantly reduce the pest
damage in Chinese kale. Moreover, pest damage was
lower in the treatments with PRPs+biopesticides, i.e.
CG+ biopesticides, and SwB+biopesticides, than the
treatments with PRPs or biopesticides alone. These
effects were shown under control effects in Table 3.
\lhog dqg Txdolw|
Chinese kale yield was not significantly different
among treatments (Table 3). Control and citronella
grass treatments had the lowest yield (1.7 kg/m2) while
the highest yield was in CG+biopesticides and SwB+
biopesticides treatment (2.2 kg/m2). Other treatments
including CG+SaB+SwB, SaB+biopesticides and bio-
pesticides alone had moderate yields. Chinese kale
planted with PRPs alone had lower yields than 2.0
2
kg/m . The result indicates that the combination of
three PRPs as well as the combinations of PRPs and
biopesticides give higher yields than that of PRPs
alone.
Similar to pest damage, the mean quality score was
highest in the control treatment (4.0-moderate-heavy
 Pest repellent plants biopesticides 73

Table 3. Pest damage (%) at harvest (40 days after sowing), control effects, yield and quality score of Chinese kale

Control Mean quality

Treatment Mean Pest damage (%) 3) Yield (kg/m2)
effects score5)
1. Control1) 86.75.8 (1.060.11)a 2) 0.0 1.70.9 (17.09.0)4) 4.0
b
2. Citronella grass (CG) 70.017.3 (0.790.23) 19.2 1.70.1 (17.30.6) 2.8
b
3. Sweet basil (SwB) 70.010.0 (0.780.14) 19.2 1.91.1 (18.310.8) 2.8
bc
4. Sacred basil (SaB) 63.315.3 (0.700.21) 26.9 1.80.8 (18.08.0) 2.8
b
5. CG+SaB 66.715.3 (0.740.20) 23.1 1.90.7 (19.06.2) 2.9
bc
6. CG+SaB+SwB 60.017.3 (0.660.23) 30.8 2.00.2 (20.02.0) 2.7
d
7. CG+biopesticides 33.315.3 (0.340.16) 61.5 2.20.4 (21.73.5) 2.1
cd
8. SwB+biopesticides 46.715.3 (0.490.17) 46.2 2.20.6 (22.06.1) 2.5
bc
9. SaB+biopesticides 56.711.6 (0.610.15) 34.6 2.10.5 (20.75.1) 2.4
bc
10. Biopesticides 56.711.6 (0.610.15) 34.6 2.10.0 (20.30.6) 2.5
6)
LSD (p=0.05) 0.250 ns
CV% 21.5 25.3
1)
No pest repellent plant used, and only Chinese kale was grown
2)
Values in parenthesis are Arc Sine-transformed values; Values within a column followed by different letters are significantly
different at p=0.05
3)
Control effects = (control damage-treatment damage)/control damagex100
4)
Values within parenthesis are in t/ha
5)
Quality score : 0 - no apparent damage; 1 - minor feeding damage (1% leaf area eaten); 2 - minor- moderate feeding
damage (2-5% leaf area eaten); 3 - moderate damage (6-10% leaf area eaten); 4 - moderate-heavy damage (11-30% leaf
area eaten); and 5 - heavy damage (>30% leaf area eaten)
6)
ns - Not significantly different at p=0.05

damage) which indicates a greater pest damage than
that of lower quality scores. The lowest score was
in CG+biopesticides treatment (2.1-minor-moderate
feeding damage) (Table 3). The treatments with PRPs+
biopesticides and biopesticides alone also had lower
quality scores than the treatments with PRPs alone,
and this indicates that the combinations of biopesti-
cides with PRPs can improve the quality of Chinese
kale yield when compared to the use of PRPs alone.
The results of this investigation indicates that the
integrated use of selected PRPs and biopesticides can
reduce the densities of insect pests of Chinese kale,
especially DBM larvae. Sinchaisri et al. (1988) also
found that crude extract of citronella grass could repel
DBM larvae under laboratory conditions and sug-
gested that this plant species contained some quantities
of repellent chemicals that affected DBM larvae.
Tawatsin et al. (2001) showed that volatile oils ex-
tracted from citronella grass (Cymbopogon winterianus)
could repel both day- and night-biting mosquitoes.
Nakahara et al. (2003) reported that major constituents
of the citronella oil were geraniol, trans-citral, cis-
citral, geranyl acetate, citronellal and citronellol, and
which may have repellent effects on DBM larvae.
Furthermore, sacred basil reduced the number of
FBT. This finding supports those of Kareem (1999)
in which a wide array of chemicals synthesized by
plants had effects in the control of insect pests. There-
fore, it would be interesting to further investigate the
repellent effects of chemical substances synthesized
by PRPs on insect pests of many other crops including
Chinese kale. Moreover, the use of PRPs integrated
with biopesticides could significantly reduce percen-
tage pest damage and improve quality of yield of
Chinese kale. As Palaniappan and Annadurai (1999)
and Farlex (2004) indicated that organic agriculture
needed to avoid the use of synthetic pesticides, the
use of PRPs and biopesticides might be an alternative
method of control that could be applied in organic
Chinese kale production. This investigation provided
useful information for Chinese kale growers who
could apply these biological measures for controlling
insect pests and avoid the heavy use of highly toxic
synthetic pesticides and existence of such residue both
in food and environment. The use of PRPs and
biopesticides are also harmless to both beneficial
insects and other non-target organisms. Krishnamo-
orthy and Mani (2001) stated that insecticides could
be applied effectively in short periods of pest attacks
in vegetable crops, unfortunately, they are ineffective
on many of the pests including diamondback moth,
and have many negative effects, especially pesticide
residue in the environment. Therefore, it is necessary
to explore to find more effective control measures
such as mechanical and biological control to protect
crops and leave no pesticide residue in the environ-
ment.
74 J. Asia-Pacific Entomol. Vol. 10 (2007)
Acknowledgement The authors acknowledge the Ministry
of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand for providing scho-
larship to the first author for her graduate studies at AIT
and to Wattanaporn Meskuntavon, Senior Laboratory Super-
visor of the Agricultural Technology Laboratories, for tech-
nical assistance.
Olwhudwxuh Flwhg
Anon. 2003. Botanical products. Available: http://www. ipmthai-
land.org/en/Components/botanicals.htm (Accessed 2004 Jun
29).
Anon. 2004. Never mind the farmers, what about my food?
Available: http://www.ipmthailand.org/en/Your_poison/18_
never_mind_the_farmers.htm (Accessed 2004 Jun 8).
Awasthi, M.D. 2001. Pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables.
pp. 263-278, in Integrated pest management in horticultural
ecosystems, Eds. P. Parvatha Reddy, A. Verghese and N.
K. Krishna Kumar. 292pp. Capital Publishing Company,
New Delhi.
Dissathaporn, O., T. Sathapornvorasak and J. Jomthaisong.
2002. Production of pesticide free vegetables (in Thai).
122pp. Department of Agricultural Extension, Ministry of
Agriculture and Cooperatives, Bangkok, Thailand.
Farlex. 2004. Integrated pest management. Available: http://
encyclopedia. thefreedictionary.com (Accessed 2004 Nov
11).
Frauke, J. 1997. Pesticide facts in Thailand. Available: http://
www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p8.htm (Accessed 2004
Jun 8).
Greene, G.L., W.G. Genung, R.B. Workman and E.G. Kelshimer.
1969. Cabbage looper control in Florida - A cooperative
program. J. Econ. Entomol. 62: 798-800.
Harris, J. and D. Dent. 1999. Priorities in biopesticide R&D
in developing countries. Available: http://www.biopesticide.
org/Reports/ Priorities_BP.htm (Accessed 2003 Dec 8).
Jamornmarn, S. 2000. Social and environmental implications
of plant protection methods. pp. 30-33. Report of the APO
Seminar on Integrated Pest Management; 1998 Apr 20-24;
Bangkok. Thailand.
Kareem, A. 1999. Biopesticides and insect pest management.
pp. 1-6, in Biopesticides in insect pest management, Eds.
S. Ignacimuthu and A. Sen. 262pp. Phoenix Publishing
House, New Delhi.
Kianmeesuk, P., K. Bansiddhi, N. Kitbamrung, J. Piriyapol,
S. Thothong, S. Siripoltungmun, L. Insung, U. Jaipetch,
S. Pichitsuwanchai, S. Rungrattanavaree and S. Prasong-
sap. 1999. Insect pests of vegetables (in Thai). 97p. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooper-
atives, Bangkok, Thailand.
Krishnamoorthy, A. and M. Mani. 2001. Parasitoids and pre-
dators as components in IPM of vegetable crops. pp.
108-121, in Integrated pest management in horticultural
ecosystems, Eds. P. Parvatha Reddy, A. Verghese and N.
K. Krishna Kumar. 292pp. Capital Publishing Company,
New Delhi.
Metcalf, R.L. and W.H. Luckmann. 1982. Introduction to insect
pest management. 587pp. Wiley-Interscience, New York.
Nakahara, K., N.S. Alzoreky, T. Yoshihashi, H.T.T. Nguyen
and G. Trakoontivakorn. 2003. Chemical composition and
antifungal activity of essential oil from Cymbopogon nardus
(Citronella grass). JARQ. 37(4): 249-252.
Palaniappan, S.P. and K. Annadurai. 1999. Organic farming:
theory and practice. 257pp. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur.
Sinchaisri, N., D. Roongsook and S. Areekul. 1988. Botanical
repellent against the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella
L. Kasetsart J. Nat. Sci. 22: 71-74.
Steel, R.G.D. and J.H. Torrie. 1980. Principles and procedures
of statistic: a biometrical approach. 2nd ed., 633pp. McGraw-
Hill Book Company, New York.
Tawatsin, A., S.D. Wratten, R.R. Scott, U. Thavara and Y.
Techadamrongsin. 2001. Repellency of volatile oils from
plants against three mosquito vectors. J. Vector Ecol. 26(1):
76-82.
Weel, P. and H. Wulp (Eds). 1999. Participatory integrated
pest management. 67p. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Develop-
ment Cooperation, Hague.
Zehnder, G. 2004. Insect pest management in the home vege-
table garden. Available: http://www.clemson.edu/scg/ipm/
hmeveg.htm#Trap%20Plants (Accessed 2004 Jun 24).