See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272495042

Bioefficacy of Abamectin, Chlorantraniprole and Emamectin benzoate against

tobacco caterpillar, Spodoptera litura (Fab.)

Article · January 2014

CITATIONS READS

4 1,820

2 authors, including:

Nitin Thodsare
G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar
7 PUBLICATIONS   17 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nitin Thodsare on 20 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J. ent. Res., 38 (4) : 00-00 (2014)

Bioefficacy of Abamectin, Chlorantraniprole and Emamectin benzoate

against tobacco caterpillar, Spodoptera litura (Fab.)

N.H. Thodsare* and R.P. Srivastava

Bioactive Plants Natural Products Laboratory, Department of Entomology, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and
Technology, Pantnagar - 263 145, U.S. Nagar, Uttarakhand, India

Abstract
Bioefficacy of abamectin (0.1, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07 and 0.06%) and emamectin benzoate (0.04, 0.009, 0.006
and 0.002%) was examined against 10d old larvae of S. litura by leaf dip bioassay method. Emamectin
benzoate proved to be more toxic than abamectin with the LC30, LC50 and LC90 values of 0.001, 0.007 and
0.45% respectively at 12 hours after exposure (HAE). At 24 HAE the LC50 value of emamectin benzoate and
abamectin were 0.002 and 0.02% respectively. Emamectin benzoate showed 10 times more toxicity than
abamectin at LC50 and was quick in causing mortality than abamectin.

Key words : Abamectin, Emamectin benzoate, LC50, LT50.

Inroduction growing areas of Central and Southern India. During

The tobacco caterpillar, Spodoptera litura
(Fabricius) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is a polyphagous
insect, whose reproductive capacity and migration
ability over long distances has made it economically
an important pest of many agricultural crops with
a wider geographic range throughout tropical and
temperate Asia, Africa, North Africa and Pacific
Island. It is absent in European Union. S. litura
has been reported to attack over 112 cultivated
plant species belonging to 44 families, out of which
about 60 species are known from India (Garad et
al., 1984; Chari and Patel, 1972). It has become a
major pest and endemic in southern states of India
causing yield losses up to 71 per cent (Amin, 1983).
In a recent outbreak in Kota region Rajasthan,
S. litura on soybean inflicted an estimated loss of
Rs. 300 crore. The pest also struck in epidemic
form on soybean in Vidarbha region of Maharashtra
in August 2008 and caused widespread losses
(Dhaliwal and Koul, 2010). Moreover, the intensity
of S. litura is likely to further increase under the
potential climate change, as it has been found to
consume more than 30 per cent cotton leaves at
elevated CO2 levels (Kranthi et al., 2009). Outbreaks
of S. litura were also noticed in major sunflower
*Part of the approved Ph.D thesis of senior author; Corresponding author
E-mail: nitinthodsare164@gmail.com
2005, the outbreak of S. litura led to more than 90
per cent defoliation of sunflower cultivar germplasm
(Sujatha and Lakshminarayana, 2007). Groundnut
yield losses up to 71% have been reported in the
irrigated tracts of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and
Tamil Nadu, the southern states of India (Nair,
1986; Amin, 1988).Outbreaks of this pest on cotton,
tobacco and chillies have been reported in Tamil
Nadu (Rao et al., 1983).
The problem of development of resistance to
insecticides is more acute in this pest because
of its polyphagous nature and rapid multiplication
(Ramakrishnan et al., 1984). Development of
insecticide resistance in this pest has been faster in
the last two decades (Venkateshwarlu et al., 2006).
High resistance in this pest to various insecticides
including organochlorines, organophosphates,
carbamates, synthetic pyrethroids and Bacillus
thuringiensis Berliner have been reported in China
and India (Ramakrishnan et al., 1984; Wu et al.,
1984; Zhou, 1984; Armes et al., 1997; Kranthi et
al., 2001, 2002). During 2001-2002, its outbreaks
had been more common in South Asia, mainly due
to the development of insecticide resistance (Armes
et al., 1997; Kranthi et al., 2001 and 2002) and
subsequent control failures. Different new chemistry
insecticides and Insect Growth Regulators (IGR’s)
i.e., lufeneuron, methoxyfenozide, emamectin
benzoate, spinosad, abacin and indoxacarb are
being used for the control of S. litura. In the
present study, bioefficacy of three new generation
insecticides has been studied against Pantnagar
population of S. litura.
Materials and Methods
Wild population of S. litura was collected
from Norman E. Borlaug Crop Research Centre
(NEBCRC), of the University and the culture was
maintained on castor, Ricinus communis leaves
under laboratory conditions in plastic tubs (dia 36
cm, ht. 14 cm) (Ramanagouda and Srivastava,
2009).The larvae of the required age group were
taken from the culture, as and when required. All
the experiments were conducted in the Bioactive
Plant Natural Products Laboratory of the Department
of Entomology.
The contact and stomach toxicity of three
insecticides viz., abamectin (Abacin 1.9 EC) from
Crystal Phosphate Ltd, chlorantraniliprole (Coragen
18.5 SC) from DuPont Ltd. and emamectin
benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG) form Syngenta Ltd were
determined against 10d old larvae of S. litura by
leaf dip method following Kodandaram and Dhingra
(2007) under laboratory conditions (avg. temp.
28°C, RH 80%). In order to test the toxicity of the
insecticides, fresh castor leaves were dipped in
the different concentrations of the insecticides for
2 minutes, airdried and offered for feeding to the
larvae in plastic boxes (size: l 24 × b 15 × ht. 8
cm). The control larvae were fed with castor leaves
dipped in water only. The petiole of leaves was
wrapped with cotton and dipped in water to keep
them fresh. The experiment was conducted in two
phases- preliminary screening and final testing.
In the first phase five concentrations viz., 0.08,
0.006, 0.04, 0.02 and 0.009 percent of each of
the three insecticides were prepared in tap water.
Each treatment was replicated thrice and each
replication consisted of 8 larvae. The larvae were
released onto the treated leaves in the respective
boxes and the observations were recorded on
mortality at 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours after feeding
(HAF). Moribund larvae were counted as dead.
Based on the findings of preliminary experiment,
two insecticides were selected for determination
of LC50 values against 10d old larvae of S. litura.
Five dilutions of abamectin (0.1, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07
and 0.06%) and emamectin benzoate (0.04, 0.02,
0.009 and 0.002%) were prepared in tap water.
The testing of contact and stomach toxicity was
performed as described in preliminary experiment.
The observation on mortality was recorded at 12,
24, 48, and 72 hours after feeding exposure.
The mortality data was corrected using Abbott’s
formula (Abbott, 1925). The data so obtained
were subjected to probit analysis for obtaining
regression equation and determination of LC value
following Finney (1971). The relative toxicity (RT) of
insecticides was calculated based on LC 30, 50 and
90 values by using the following formula:
LC value of least toxic insecticide
RT =
LC value of candidate insecticide
Results and Discussion
The Abbott’s corrected mortality data presented
in Fig. 1 indicated that chlorantraniliprole molecule
exhibited no toxicity against 10d old larvae of S. litura
fed with leaves dipped in any of the concentration
of is ranging from 0.009 to 0.08% upto 48h. The
experiment was repeated two times to confirm this
finding. However, a toxicity profile, almost equivalent
to abamectin was reflected by this molecule at
72HAE (Fig. 2).
Since significant mortality was not observed
in chlorantraniliprole upto 48 HAE the final
experiment was conducted only with abamectin and
emamectin benzoate at the adjusted concentrations.
The observations on mortality indicated a dose
dependent mortality, because of differential response
of the larvae at different concentrations of test
insecticides the LC50 value for abamectin could be
calculated at 24 and 48 HAE, and for emamectin
Fig. 1. Bioefficacy of three insecticides against 10d old
larvae of tobacco caterpillar, S. litura (Fab.) at 48
HAE by leaf dip bioassay method.

Fig. 2. Bioefficacy of three insecticides against 10d old
larvae of tobacco caterpillar, S. litura (Fab.) at 72
HAE by leaf dip bioassay method.
benzoate at 12 and 24 HAE. Emamectin benzoate
proved to be more toxic than abamectin with the
LC30, LC50 and LC90 values of 0.001, 0.007 and
0.45% respectively at 12 HAE (Table 1). Abamectin
could not cause sufficient mortality at 12HAE to
go for probit analysis. At 24 HAE the LC50 value
of emamectin benzoate and abamectin were 0.002
and 0.02% respectively. The emamectin benzoate
showed 10 times more toxicity than abamectin at
LC50. The LC90 values for the same insecticides were
0.17 and 0.98% respectively, emamectin benzoate
showing 5.76 times more toxicity than abamectin
against S. litura (Table 2). The LC30, LC50 and LC90
values for abamectin at 48HAE were 0.002, 0.006
and 0.14% respectively (Table 3).
The data on duration response of two insecticides
against 10d old larvae of S. litura by leaf dip bioassay
method indicated that emamectin benzoate was far
more quicker in causing mortality than abamectin. At
a concentration of 0.02% emamectin benzoate took
7.63 h to cause 50% mortality of the larval population
whereas abamectin required 14.46 h for the same
mortality at a five times higher concentrations
of 0.1%. Likewise the LT90 value for emamectin
benzoate at 0.02% was 131.07 h and for abamectin
63.02 h at 0.1%.Further the LT90 value for abamectin
at 0.09% was 429.58 h. It is evident from the data
that emamectin benzoate is a fast acting insecticide
as compared to abamectin (Table 4).
Shaila et al. (2013) have investigated the
LC50 value of abamectin and emamectin benzoate
against 3rd instar larvae of S. litura as 210.23 and

Table 1. Dosage-mortality response of Emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5SG) against 10d old larvae of tobacco caterpillar,
Spodoptera litura (Fab.) at 12HAE by leaf dip bioassay method.
Insecticide (Trade name) LC values (%) Chi Regression equation Fiducial limits
square Y = a + bx (LC50)
LC30 LC50 LC90 Lower Upper
Emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5SG) 0.001 0.007 0.45 0.20 Y = 4.37 + 0.22x 0.002 0.01

Table 2. Dosage-mortality response of Emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5SG) and Abamectin (Abacin 1.9 EC) against
10d old larvae of tobacco caterpillar, Spodoptera litura (Fab.) at 24HAE by leaf dip bioassay method.
Insecticides (Trade LC values (% ) Chi Regression Fiducial limit
name) square equation (LC50)
LC30 **RT LC50 RT at LC90 RT at Y = a + bx Lower Upper
at LC30 LC50 LC90
Emamectin benzoate 0.0005 8.00 0.002 10.00 0.17 5.76 0.71 Y = 4.15 + 0.3x 0.00007 0.006
(Proclaim 5SG)
Abamectin (Abacin 0.004 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.69 Y = 3.99 + 0.24x 0.01 0.16
1.9 EC)
**Relative toxicity (RT) = LC value of least toxic insecticide/LC value of candidate insecticide

Table 3. Dosage-mortality response of Abamectin (Abacin 1.9 EC) against 10d old larvae of tobacco caterpillar,
Spodoptera litura (Fab.) at 48 HAE by leaf dip bioassay method.
Insecticide (Trade name) LC values (%) Chi Regression equation Fiducial limits (LC50)
LC30 LC50 LC90 square Y = a + bx Lower Upper
Abamectin (Abacin 1.9 EC) 0.002 0.006 0.14 3.60 Y = 4.15 + 0.33x 0.003 0.01
Table 4. Duration-mortality response of Emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5SG) and Abamectin (Abacin 1.9 EC) against
10d old larvae of tobacco caterpillar, Spodoptera litura (Fab.) by leaf dip bioassay method.
Insecticides (Trade name) Conc. *LT values in hours
(%)
LC30
Emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 0.02 2.40
5 SG)
Abamectin (Abacin 1.9 EC) 0.1 7.95
0.09 10.12
*The LT values at the same conc. could not be calculated due to very high/low mortality in the treatments
102.12 ppm, respectively by topical application
method using micropipette. The mean corrected
mortality percentages recorded were 80.0, 73.3,
66.6, 60.0, 46.6 and 36.6 at 180, 160, 140, 120,
100 and 80 ppm concentrations of emamectin
benzoate, respectively. The mean corrected
percentage mortality of 89.99, 82.6, 77.3, 67.2, 43.0,
35.2 and 30.6 was recorded at the concentrations
of 350, 300, 250, 200, 150, 100 and 50 ppm of
abamectin, respectively, as against nil mortality
in control. Gupta et al. (2004) have determined
relative susceptibility of 5d old larvae of S. litura
by Potter’s tower method. On the basis of LC50
value, the order of toxicity of different insecticides
with relative toxicity in parenthesis was: emamectin
benzoate (6.93) > fenvalerate (1.82) > indoxacarb
(1.62) > cypermethrin (1.00) > abamectin (0.94) >
quinalphos (0.67) > bifenthrin (0.51) > spinosad
(0.44) > endosulfan (0.28) > betacyfluthrin (0.23)
> lambda cyhalothrin (0.19).
Chilana (2009) has observed that emamectin
benzoate and indoxacarb are potential candidates
for insecticide resistance management against 7d
old larvae of S. litura and S. obliqua. Emamectin
benzoate was 124 to 7223.8 and indoxacarb was 60
to 1911.1 fold effective than endosulfan by comparing
the relative toxicity in terms of LC90 values. Bisht
(2010) has compared the inherent toxicity of three
insecticides viz. emamectin benzoate,flubendiamide
and chlorantraniliprole against 7d old larvae of S.
litura by leaf dip method. Emamectin benzoate
was most toxic insecticide at 72 HAE at all the
three LC levels (LC50 = 0.84 and LC90 = 5.4 ppm).
On the basis of LC50, 72HAE, flubendiamide and
chlorantraniliprole were 36.31 and 4.80 times less
toxic than emamectin benzoate, further emamectin
benzoate was fastest acting (LT50 = 21.93 h), and
flubendiamide and chlorantraniliprole were relatively
Chi Regression Fiducial limits
square equation (LT50)
LC50 LC90 Y = a + bx Lower Upper
7.63 131.07 0.50 Y = 4.29 + 0.28x 0.0009 16.64
14.46 63.02 0.35 Y = 4.35 + 0.53x 6.81 20.57
29.88 429.58 0.005 Y = 4.89 + 0.29x 11.39 65.04
slower in toxic action with LT50 of 61.62 and 54.12h
respectively.
Rehan et al. (2011) have recorded the LC50 data
for emamectin benzoate, spinosad, imidacloprid
and profenofos against field population of S. litura.
Emamectin benzoate (1.59 ppm) was found to be
most toxic on the basis of LC50 value followed by
spinosad (7.77 ppm), profenofos (689.5 ppm) and
imidacloprid (258.75 ppm) at generation one; after
11 generations the LC50 values as compared to the
field populations of S. litura was 4.81, 9.83, 9.3 and
13.82 folds against emamectin benzoate, spinosad,
imidacloprid and profenofos, respectively. Bhatti et
al.(2013) have determined the LC50 of deltamethrin,
bifenthrin, emamectin benzoate, chlorfluazuron and
flubendiamide against 2nd instar larvae of S. litura
under laboratory condition using leaf dip method,
the LC50 values were 619 and 100, 74.2 and 65.8,
0.08 and 0.06, 73.4 and 52.5 and 0.37 and 0.31
µl/ml respectively after 48 and 72 h of exposure.
Pyrethroids were least effective due to high LC50
values as compared to new chemistry insecticides.
In our experiment emamectin benzoate proved to
be more toxic than abamectin with LC50 value of
0.007% at 12 HAE and 0.002% at 24 HAE; and
abamectin was less toxic than emamectin benzoate
with LC50 of 0.02% at 24 HAE and 0.006% at 48
HAE. At a conc. of 0.002% emamectin benzoate
took 7.63 h (LT50) and abamectin required 14.46 h
(LT50) at a five times higher conc. of (0.1%) than
emamectin benzoate. Such observations have also
been made by other authors.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to the Head, Entomology
and Dean Agriculture, G.B. Pant University of
Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar for providing
necessary facilities.
Reference
Abbott, W.S. 1925. A method of computing the
effectiveness of an insecticide. J. Econ. Ent.,
18: 265-67.
Amin, P.W. 1988. Insect and mite pests and their
control. In: Groundnut. Reddy, P.S. (Ed.) New
Delhi, India: Indian Council of Agricultural
Research, pp. 393-452.
Amin, P.W. 1983. Major field insect pests of groundnut
in India and associated crop losses. In: B.H.
Krishnamurthy Rao and K.S.R.K. Murthy (eds.),
Proceedings of the National Seminar on Crop
Losses due to Insect Pests. Hyderabad, Andhra
Pradesh, India, 7-9 January, 1983, pp. 337-344.
Armes, N.J., Wightman, J.A., Jadhav, D.R. and Rao,
G.V.R. 1997. Status of insecticide resistance
in Spodoptera litura in Andhra Pradesh, India.
Pesticide Sci., 50: 240-48.
Bhatti, S.S., Ahmad, M., Yousaf, K. and Naeem,
M. 2013. Pyrethroids and New Chemistry
Insecticides Mixtures Against Spodoptera Litura
(Noctuidae: Lepidoptera) Under Laboratory
Conditions. Asian J. Agric. Biol., 1: 45-50.
Bisht, K. 2010. Inhibitory effect of some medicinal
plant extracts and efficacy of insecticide
formulations. Thesis, M.Sc. (Ag.), Department
of Entomology, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture
and Technology, Pantnagar, pp. 102.
Chari, M.S. and Patel, N.G. 1972. Efficacy some
newer of insecticides against the tobacco leaf-
eating caterpillar, Spodoptera litura (Fab.). Indian
J. Ent., 34: 261-62.
Chilana, P. 2009. Evaluation of medicinal plant extracts,
novel molecules and conventional insecticides
against silkworm species and polyphagous
insect pests. Thesis, Ph.D., Department Of
Entomology, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture
and Technology, Pantnagar, pp. 225.
Dhaliwal, G.S. and Koul, O. 2010. Quest for Pest
Management: From Green Revolution to Gene
Revolution. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi.
Finney, J.C. 1971. Probit analysis, Cambridge
University Press, London, p. 333.
Garad, G.P., Shivpuje, P.R. and Bilapte, G.G. 1984.
Life fecundity tables of Spodoptera litura (F.)
on different hosts. Proceedings of the Indian
Academy of Science, 93: 29-33.
Gupta, G.P., Rani, S., Ajanta, B. and Raghuraman, M.
2004. Relative toxicity of certain new insecticides
against Spodoptera litura (Fabricius). Pesticide
Res. J., 16: 45-47.
Kodandaram, M.H. and Dhingra, S. 2007. Variation
in the toxicity of organophosphate insecticides
to field population of Spodoptera litura. Indian
J. Pl. Prot., 35: 53-56.
Kranthi, K.R., Jadhav, D.R., Kranthi, S., Wanjari,
R.R., Ali, R.R. and Russell, D.A. 2002. Insecticide
resistance in five major insect pests of cotton in
India. Crop Prot., 21: 449-60.
Kranthi, K.R., Jadhav, D.R., Wanjari, R.R., Ali,
S.S. and Russell, D.A. 2001.Carbamate and
organophosphate resistance in cotton pests in
India 1995 to 1999. Bull. Ent. Res., 91: 37-46.
Kranthi, K.R., Kranthi, S., Gopalakrishnan, N.,
Asokan, R. and Mayee, C.D. 2009. Bt resistance-
Its management and prospects in the current
context of climate change. In: V.V. Ramamurthy,
G.P. Gupta and S.N. Puri (eds) Proceeding of
National Symposium, IPM Strategies to Combat
Emerging Pests in the Current Scenario of
Climate Change. January 28-30, 2009, Pasighat,
Arunachal Pradesh, pp. 237-261.
Nair, M.R.G.K. 1986. Insects and Mites of Crops in
India: Indian Council of Agricultural Research
New Delhi, India.
Ramakrishnan, N., Saxena, V.S. and Dhingra, S.
1984. Insecticide resistance to the population
of Spodoptera litura (F.) in Andhra Pradesh.
Pesticides Sci., 18: 23-27.
Ramangouda S.H and Srivastava, R.P 2009. Bioefficacy
of insecticides against tobacco caterpillar,
Spodoptera litura. Indian J. Pl. Prot., 37: 14-19.
Rao, B.H.K., Subbaratnam, G.V. and Murthy, K.S.R.K.
1983. Crop losses due to insect pests Spl. Indian
J. Ent., 1: 215.
Rehan, A., Saleem, M.A. and Freed, S. 2011.
Baseline susceptibility and stability of insecticide
resistance of Spodoptera litura (F.) (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae) in the absence of selection pressure.
Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 43: 973-78.
 Shaila, O., Rao, S.R.K. and Babu, R.T. 2013.
Chemical compatibility of avermectins and chitin
synthesis inhibitors with common fungicides
against Spodoptera litura. European J. Zool.
Res., 2: 116-23.
Sujatha, M. and Lakshminarayana, M. 2007.
Resistance to Spodoptera litura (Fabr.) in
Helianthus species and backcross derived inbred
lines from crosses involving diploid species.
Euphytica, 155: 205-13.
View publication stats
Venkateshwarlu, U., Madhumathi, T., Arjuna Rao, P.
and Srinivas Rao, V. 2006. Status of insecticide
resistance in Spodoptera litura on cotton in
Guntur and Praakasam districts of Andhra
Pradesh. Indian J. Pl. Prot., 34: 26-32.
Wu, S., Gu, Y. and Wang, D. 1984. Resistance
of the tobacco armymoth (Prodenia litura) to
insecticides and its control. Acet. Agric. Shang.,
11: 39-43.
Zhou, T. 1984. Monitoring of the resistance in
common cutworm Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae) to four classes of insecticides. Agric.
Res. China, 33: 331-33.
(Accepted : September 05, 2014)