Sarhad J. Agric. Vol. 29, No.

4, 2013

PREDATOR-PREY SCENARIO IN DIFFERENT CULTIVARS OF COTTON

NOSHABA NARGIS1, MUSHTAQ AHMAD SALEEM1, *UMAIR FAHEEM2, MUHAMMAD YASIN2 and MUHAMMAD BAKHSH2 1. 2. Department of Entomology, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan - Pakistan. Cotton Research Institute, Rahim Yar Khan - Pakistan. *Corresponding author: umair_faheem_1@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT Five cotton cultivars, such as CIM-496, CIM-534, NIAB-111, MNH-786 and Bt-121 were compared in the experiment for resistance against insect pests and presence of predators among them at Agriculture Experimental Farms of University College of Agriculture, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan. It was found that there was a significant variation in resistance in these cultivars of cotton against different insect pests but the population of the predators found to be non-significantly different among these cultivars of cotton. Application of synthetic insecticides significantly reduces the predators and pests/prey population as compared to the un- sprayed field. Bt-121 and MNH-786 were the most tolerant cultivars against both the sucking and chewing insect pests of cotton but the application of insecticides would still be required to keep the population of insect pests below the economic damage. It is therefore, recommended that only such cultivars of cotton i.e. Bt-121 and MNH-786, should be sown which are resistant to pest attack because in this way number of insecticide applications in the cropping season could be reduced. Similarly, only those insecticides should be used, which possess minimum toxicity to non-target organisms. Uses of environmental friendly insecticides are accordingly required to be encouraged in Pakistan to avoid deleterious effects of poisons on beneficial insects. Keywords: Cotton, cultivars, predator, prey, integrated pest management (IPM), host plant resistance (HPR). Citation: Nargis, N., M. A. Saleem, U. Faheem, M. Yasin and M. Bukhsh. 2013. Predator prey scenario in different cultivars of cotton. Sarhad J. Agric 29(4): 557-562 INTRODUCTION Field crops are vulnerable to attack by pests. This damage can range from slight damage that has no effect on the value of the crop to severe damage that kills plants, reduces yield and market value of the crop. These pests include insects, mites, weeds, diseases, and nematodes. Cotton being cash crop of Pakistan is becoming less profitable due to heavy infestation of insect pests, cost of sprays and low yield. The main strategy used in the second half of the 20th century for controlling insect pests has been the use of chemical insecticides (Van den Bosch, 1978; Casida and Quistad, 1998). Insecticides are necessary tools for management of cotton insect pests in almost all the cotton production systems (Castle et al., 1999). Complete reliance has been made on insecticides for the control of these insect pests and has created problems of health hazards not only to human and animal life but also aided to speed up environmental pollution in many parts of the world (Soerjani, 1998). Host Plant Resistance (HPR) is only of the key component of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program which stewards the crop by making it less preferable for the pest or by making it tolerant to the pest. There are different insect pest control tactics, in which plant resistance plays a significant role in IPM, as resistant cultivars can easily control insect pests without the application of insecticides (Ali and Ahmad, 1982; Bughio et al., 1984; Jin et al., 1999; Hua and Hua, 2000 and Khan et al., 2003). HPR can provide control of insect pests without extra cost. It is also environmentally safe and economical (Pedigo, 1989; Khan and Sexena, 1998). HPR not only plays an important role in controlling insect pests but also helps in protecting natural enemies in an agroecosystem (Farid et al., 1998; Francis et al., 2001; Messina and Sorenson, 2001; Giles et al., 2002). Ali and Ahmad, (1982); Bughio et al., (1984); Jin et al., (1999) and Khan et al., (2003) have reported variations in resistance level in cotton cultivars. Screening out of resistance in different cultivars of cotton, which is generally practiced in the Punjab and Sindh provinces, is a pre-requisite for the success of such a strategy. All insect pests have a range of natural enemies. It is possible, although expensive, to complement insect control by chemicals releasing specific parasites and predators of the pest insect into the crop. However, it is preferable from an economic aspect to select insecticides that are either very specific to the concerned insect pest or are systemic in the plant, so as to minimize their effects on natural enemies of the insect pest and maximize natural ecological control measures. The present study was therefore designed (i) to compare the population of insect pests and its predators on resistant and susceptible cotton cultivars, (ii) to screen out the most tolerant cultivar of cotton cultivar against insect pests, (iii) screen out the most attractant cultivar of cotton for the natural enemies of cotton insect pests and compare the population of predators in sprayed and unsprayed conditions.

Noshaba Nargis, et al. Predator-prey scenario in different cultivars of cotton

558

MATERIALS AND METHODS The trial was conducted on cotton crop at the Agriculture Experimental Farms of University College of Agriculture, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan during the year 2011. Cultivars Five cotton cultivars were used for the experiment, such as CIM-496, CIM-534, NIAB-111, MNH-786 and Bt121. Experimental design The experiment was designed in split plot manner. In first main plot the insecticides were used for the control of insect pests as the populations of insect pests started to build-up. The second main plot was left unsprayed throughout the experimental duration. All the five cultivars were sown in the sub-plots. There were four replications of each treatment. The size of each plot was 5x5m. Agronomic practices The seed bed was prepared by two cultivations followed by planking. The cultivars were sown manually on 15.05.2011. The plant-plant and row-row distance was maintained at 9 inches and 30 inches, respectively. A path of 1m was maintained between each plot for movement in order to take data and other management practices. Insecticides The common and trade names of insecticides used in this study along with spray date are given in the Table 1.
Table 1 Trade and common names of insecticides along with spray dates of insecticidal applications. Trade Name Common Name Spray Date Mospilon 20SP Acetamiprid (Neonicotinoid) 19.06.2011 Confidor 200SL Imidacloprid (Neonicotinoid) 17.07.2011 Dimmer 40EC Acephate (Organophosphate) 14.08.2011 Match 50EC Leufenuron (IGR) 04.09.2011

Sampling of predators-prey population For the sampling of sucking insect pests ten plants were selected from each plot. Then population of the sucking insect pests was counted on top, middle and bottom leaf and used its mean to calculate per leaf population (Arif et al., 2004; Pathan et al., 2007; Amjad et al., 2009 and Ghafoor et al., 2011). For the sampling of chewing insect pests and predators same ten plants were thoroughly observed and population of predators and chewing insect pests was evaluated (Aslam et al., 2004). Statistical analysis The data was subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) by using MSTATC, computer software (MSU, 1982). Means of populations on different cultivars were separated by Duncans Multiple Range Test at = 0.05%. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Sucking Insect Pests Scenario Bemisia Tabaci Table 2 indicates that the population of B. tabaci was significantly (P<0.05) reduced by the application of spray. The population of B. tabaci was found to be significantly (P<0.05) lower in fields where insecticide was applied on all the cultivars of cotton. Cultivars CIM-496, NIAB-111, CIM-534 and Bt-121were found equally susceptible (difference was non significant) against the B. tabaci. MNH-786 and Bt-121 showed some sort of tolerance where the mean population of B. tabaci was 3.69 and 3.78, respectively in unsprayed field. Thrips Tabaci CIM-496, NIAB-111 and CIM-534 like above mentioned results of whitefly were found susceptible against T. tabaci. The difference among their susceptibility was not significant (P>0.05) from each other. MNH-786 and Bt-121 were found less susceptible against T. tabaci infestation and their susceptibility was also found similar to each other. The insecticide application had a significant impact on the population of T. tabaci. The population of T. tabaci was found significantly (P<0.05) less in sprayed field as compared to the unsprayed fields in all the cultivars (Table 2).

Sarhad J. Agric. Vol. 29, No.4, 2013

559

Amrasca Devastans By observing the mean population of A. devastans in Table 2, the results indicated that the population of A. devastans in all the cotton cultivars remained above the economic threshold level under the unsprayed conditions, while the insecticide application kept the population of A. devastans under control. CIM-496 and Bt121 were found to be the most susceptible against the infestation of A. devastans but CIM-496 was found significantly (P<0.05) more susceptible than MNH-786. All other cultivars were found similar (P>0.05) in susceptibility against the infestation of A. devastans.
Table 2. Cultivars Mean population (mean of 17 weekly observations) of sucking insects per leaf in different cultivars of cotton under sprayed and unsprayed conditions during 2011 cropping season. Sprayed Unsprayed Sprayed Unsprayed Sprayed Unsprayed Sprayed Unsprayed Sprayed Unsprayed

Bemisia tabaci Thrips tabaci Amrasca devastans 2.74bc 4.59b 0.53c CIM-496 4.63a 7.74a 2.40a 2.28c 2.43c 0.24c MNH-786 3.69ab 4.41b 1.78b 2.43bc 2.81c 0.41c Bt-121 3.78ab 4.98b 2.26ab 2.53bc 4.34b 0.40c NIAB-111 4.43a 7.54a 2.13ab 2.44bc 4.09b 0.32c CIM-534 4.18a 7.16a 2.00ab LSD Value 1.356 1.059 0.592 (Means were separated by DMR test at the 0.05% level of significance. Means within columns sharing the same alphabets were not significantly different from each other)

Chewing insect pests scenario Helicoverpa Armigera CIM-496 was found to be the most susceptible against the attack of H. armigera. Similar level of infestation was observed in MNH-786 as compared to the CIM-496. All other cultivars were found less susceptible against the infestation of H. armigera (Table 3). Spodoptera litura MNH-786 and Bt-121 were found to be the most tolerant cultivars against the attack of S. litura. Their susceptibility was found similar (P>0.05) to each other. Other cultivars were found susceptible against the attack of S. litura. Application of insecticides significantly reduced the population of S. litura in different cultivars of cotton (Table 3). Pectinophora Gossypiella Table 3 indicates that the CIM-496 and NIAB-111 were the most susceptible cultivars against the attack of P. gossypiella. Their mean population on these cultivars was 1.22 and 0.93 larvae per plant, respectively. Insecticide application also had a significant (P<0.05) impact on the population of P. gossypiella. Earias Spps. From Table 3 it can be seen that Bt-121 and MNH-786 were the most tolerant cultivars against the attack of E. spps.. Application of the insecticides during the course of study significantly (P<0.05) reduced the population of E. spps. in different cultivars of cotton.
Table 3 Cultivars Mean population (mean of 17 weekly observations) of chewing insects per plant in different cultivars of cotton under sprayed and unsprayed conditions during 2011 cropping season.

Helicoverpa armigera Spodoptera litura Pectinophora gossypiella Earias spps. 0.71bcde 2.16cd 0.46bcd 1.16bcd Sprayed CIM-496 1.81a 4.18a 1.22a 2.65a Unsprayed 0.32e 0.59g 0.09d 0.29d Sprayed MNH-786 1.28abc 2.13cde 0.51bcd 1.29bcd Unsprayed 0.26e 0.76fg 0.07d 0.22d Sprayed Bt-121 1.00bcde 2.81bc 0.26cd 0.81cd Unsprayed 0.53cde 1.38ef 0.22cd 0.82cd Sprayed NIAB-111 1.16abcd 3.49ab 0.93ab 2.10ab Unsprayed 0.41de 1.69de 0.12d 0.59d Sprayed CIM-534 1.44ab 3.85a 0.71bc 1.69abc Unsprayed LSD Value 0.785 0.748 0.480 1.061 (Means were separated by DMR test at the 0.05% level of significance. Means within column sharing the same alphabets were not significantly different from each other)

Noshaba Nargis, et al. Predator-prey scenario in different cultivars of cotton

560

Predators Scenario Spiders Different species of spiders which were observed during the course of study were grouped under this general term. Table 4 shows that the population of spiders was similar in different cultivars of cotton. Application of the insecticides significantly (P<0.05) reduced the population of spiders. Chrysoperla Carnea The population of C. carnea was also found similar on all the cultivars of cotton. Their population was not significantly (P>0.05) different from each other in different cultivars of cotton. But insecticide application had a significant (P<0.05) impact on the population of C. carnea which significantly (P<0.05) reduced their population (Table 4). Dragonflies and Damselflies The least population of dragonflies/damselflies was found on NIAB-111, which was non significantly (P>0.05) different from the Bt-121 and CIM-534. Insecticide application significantly (P<0.05) reduced the population of these predators (Table 4). Praying Mantis Table 4 shows that the population of praying mantis. It was found similar in all the test cultivars of cotton. Likewise the application of insecticides significantly (P<0.05) reduced the population of praying mantis in all the cultivars. Orius Spps The highest population of Orius spps. was observed on MNH-786 which was non significantly (P<0.05) different from NIAB-111. The population of Orius spps. was greatly affected by the application of insecticides (Table 4). Predatory Beetles Table 4 shows that the highest mean population of predatory beetles was observed in MNH-786. In some cultivars the insecticide application had significantly (P<0.05) reduced the population of predatory beetles.
Table 4 Mean population (mean of 17 weekly observations) of predators per plant in different cultivars of cotton under sprayed and unsprayed conditions during 2011 cropping season. Cultivars Predatory Chrysoperla Dragonflies Praying Orius spp. Predatory beetles spiders carnea and mantis Damselflies 0.34c 1.57c 0.65e 0.16d 0.87e 1.66e Sprayed CIM-496 2.59b 4.23ab 3.53a 0.60bcd 1.96cde 1.99cde Unsprayed 0.76c 2.63c 1.96cd 0.38cd 1.71cde 2.66bcd Sprayed MNH-786 3.50ab 4.78a 3.93a 1.09ab 4.28a 3.99a Unsprayed 1.06c 2.82bc 1.54de 0.19d 1.18e 1.79de Sprayed Bt-121 3.78a 4.97a 3.41ab 0.93abc 2.82bc 2.66bcd Unsprayed 0.45c 1.90c 0.76e 0.47bcd 1.46de 2.72bc Sprayed NIAB-111 2.82ab 4.27ab 2.54bc 1.26a 3.50ab 3.34ab Unsprayed 0.60c 2.31c 0.96e 0.25d 1.04e 1.78de Sprayed CIM-534 3.13ab 4.53a 3.00ab 0.94abc 2.60bcd 2.40cde Unsprayed LSD Value 1.088 1.572 0.915 0.642 1.213 0.882 (Means were separated by DMR test at the 0.05% level of significance. Means within columns sharing the same alphabets were not significantly different from each other)

Host Plant Resistance (HPR) is considered as an important tool in an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program. By exploiting HPR, we can reduce insect pest population without involving any additional cost for management. We may not manage the entire population of insect pest by exploiting HPR but in combination with other control tactics such as biological, physical and chemical control, we could effectively manage the population of insect pests below the economic injury level. From the results of current study it was observed that there was a significant variation in population of insect pests and their natural enemies in different cultivars of cotton. Earlier scientists had also reported this variation in resistance of cotton cultivars against both the sucking insect pests (Ali et al., 1999; Fairbanks et al., 2000 and Nath et al., 2000) as well as the chewing insect pests (Bughio et al., 1984; Mohan et al., 1996 and Jackson et al., 2000). Against the sucking insects non significant differences were observed among the cultivars but against

Sarhad J. Agric. Vol. 29, No.4, 2013

561

Thrips tabaci and Amrasca devastans, Bt-121 and MNH-786 had shown some sort of tolerance as compared to the other cultivars. Similarly, against the chewing insect pests, Bt-121 and MNH-786 were found to be the most tolerant cultivars and their tolerance was significantly higher from other studied cultivars. Transgenic cotton cultivars containing Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) have become an important tool for IPM program, especially for the lepidopterous larvae in cotton (Torres and Ruberson, 2005). Bt-121 was the only Bt cultivar in this study but interestingly it did not show complete tolerance against the chewing insect pests. Jamshed et al., (2008) found the similar results during the comparison of chewing pest infestation in Bt and non-Bt cotton cultivars. The results also revealed that there was non-significant difference in the population of predators in different cultivars of cotton. The population density of the natural enemies fluctuated with the population density of insect pests affected by the host plants (Fuentes-Contreras et al., 1998, Rutledge et al., 2003). Frequent applications of insecticides significantly reduced the insect pest pressure below the economic threshold level. These results indicated that application of the insecticides may still be required keeping the insect pest population in check for economical cotton production. An interesting point to understand was that the mean population of Bemisia tabaci and Thrips tabaci in unsprayed plot was below the economic threshold level but the mean population of Amrasca devastans was far above it. Pathan et al., (2007) also observed the similar situation during his experimentation on cotton cultivar resistance against the sucking insect pests. This may be due to the reason that the population built up of one species may suppress the population built up of other species. Application of insecticides would be required to keep the population of A. devastans and bollworms under check. Below the economic threshold level, pest population is of non-significant importance. Effective pest resistant cultivar has been therefore described as reducing or maintaining pest population below threshold damage (Aslam et al., 2004). CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From the present study, it can be inferred that the Bt-121 and MNH-786 were the most tolerant cultivars against both the sucking and chewing insect pests of cotton and predators population were found not significantly different from each other among the studied cultivars. The application of insecticides would still be required to keep the population of insect pests below the economic damage. It is therefore, suggested that only such insecticides should be used, which possess minimum toxicity on non-target organisms including predators. Uses of environmental friendly insecticides and insect pest resistant cotton cultivars are accordingly required to be encouraged in Pakistan to avoid deleterious effects of poisons on beneficial insects. REFERENCES Ali, A. and M. Ahmad. 1982. Biophysical resistance in different cultivars of cotton against insect pests. Pak. Entomol. 4: 2732. Ali, A., G. M. Aheer. and M. Saeed. 1999. Physicomorphic factors influencing resistance against sucking insect pests of cotton. Pak. Entomol. 21: 53-55. Amjad, M., M.H. Bashir. and M. Afzal. 2009. Comparative resistance of some cotton cultivars against sucking insect pests. Pak. J. Life Soc. Sci. 7(2): 144-147. Arif, M. J., I. A. Sial, S. Ullah. M. D. Gogi. and M. A. Sial. 2004. Some morphological plant factors effecting resistance in cotton against thrips (Thrips tabaci L.). Int. J. Agric. Boil. 06: 544546. Aslam, M., M. Razaq, N. A. Saeed. and F. Ahmad. 2004. Comparative resistance of different cotton cultivars against bollworm complex. Int, J. Agric. Biol. 6:39-41. Bughio, A.R., A. Rehman, A.Q. Zafar, T. Hussain. and , Q.H. Siddique. 1984. Field evaluation of cotton mutants for pink and spotted bollworms resistance. Nucleus Pak. 21: 479. Casida, J. E. and G. B. Quistad. 1998. Golden age of insecticide research: Past, present or future? Annu. Rev. Entomol. 43: 116. Castle, J. C., N. Prabhaker. and T. J. Henneberry. 1999. Insecticide resistance and its management in cotton insects. ICAC Rev. Article Cotton Prod. Res. 5, 55. Fairbanks, M. R., R. D. Johnson. and T. J. Kring. 2000. Thrips tolerance in current, obsolete and foreign cotton cultivars. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., San Antonio, USA, 4-8 Jan, 2:111-1112. Farid, A., J. B. Johnson, B. Shafii. and S. S. Quisenberry. 1998. Tritrophic studies of Russian wheat aphid, a parasitoid, and resistant and susceptible wheat over three parasitoid generations. Biol. Cont. 12: 16.

Noshaba Nargis, et al. Predator-prey scenario in different cultivars of cotton

562

Francis, F., G. Lognay, J. Wathelet. and E. Haubruge. 2001. Effects of allelochemicals from first (Brassicaceae) and second (Myzus persicae and Brevicoryne brassicae) trophic levels on Adalia bipunctata. J. Chem. Ecol. 27: 243256. Fuentes-Contreras, E., J. K. Pell. and H. M. Niemeyer. 1998. Influence of plant resistance at the third trophic level: Interactions between parasitoids and entomopathogenic fungi of cereal aphids. Oecologia. 117: 426432 Ghafoor, A ., M. Hassan, Z. H. Alvi. and S. Kousar. 2011. Impact of Different Varieties of Stub Cotton on Population Dynamics of Whitefly at Faisalabad, Pakistan. Pak. J. Zool. 43(1): 25-28. Giles, K. L., R. D. Madden, R. Stockland, M. E. Payton. and J. W. Dillwith. 2002. Host plants affect predator fitness via the nutritional value of herbivore prey: Investigation of a plant-aphid-ladybeetle system. Biocontrol. 47: 121. Hua, M. L. and L. C. Hua. 2000. A study on the bollworm resistance of CRI- 29 and the target to control the F3 bollworms. China Cottons 27: 202. Jackson, R. E., J. R. Bardley, A. D. Burd. and D. J. W. Van. 2000. Field and greenhouse performance on bollworms on Bollgard II cotton genotypes. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., San Antonio, USA, 4-8 January, 2: 1048-1051. Jamshed, K., A. Suhail, M. Arshad, M. Asghar. and M. M. Majeed. 2008. Comparative infestation of bollworms on transgenic Bt. and conventional cotton cultivars. Pak. Entomol. 30:193-198. Jin, Z. Q., G. D. Cao, S. S. Luo, J. M. Hong. and Y. Q. Hung. 1999. Insect resistance and yield of different insect resistant hybrid cotton cultivars. Zhejiang Nongye Kexue 3: 142-144. Khan, M. T., M. Naeem. AND M. Akram. 2003. Studies on varietal resistance of cotton against insect pest complex of cotton. Sarhad J. Agri. 19: 936. Khan, Z. R. and R. C. Saxena. 1998. Host Plant Resistance to Insects. In: Critical Issues in Insect Pest Management (eds. Dahaliwal, G.S. and E.A. Heinrichs), pp. 11855. Commonwealth Publishers, New Dehli, India. Messina, F. J. and S. M. Sorenson. 2001. Effectiveness of lacewing larvae in reducing Russian wheat aphid population on susceptible and resistant wheat. Biol. Cont. 21: 1926. Mohan, P., S. Raj. and T. V. Kathane. 1996. Feeding preferences of Heliothis larvae in relation to glanded strains of upland cotton. Insect Environ. 2: 167. Msu. 1982. Users Guide MSTATC; A Micro Computer Statistical Program, MSU Crop and Soil Sciences, Agric. Economics. Inst. of International Agric, Michigan State University, USA. Nath, P., O. P. Chaudhary, P. D. Sharma. and H. D. Kaushik. 2000. Studies on incidence of important insect pests of cotton with special reference to desi-cotton. Indian J. Entomol. 62: 391-395. Pathan, A. K., S. Chohan, M. A. Leghari, A. S. Chandio. and A. Sajjad. 2007. Comparative resistance of different cotton genotypes against insect pest complex of cotton. Sarhad J. Agric. 23: 141-143. Pedigo, L.P. 1989. Entomology and Pest Management. pp. 41339. MacMillan Pub. Co., New York. Rutledge, C.E., A. P. Robinson. and S. D. Eigenbrode. 2003. Effects of a simple plant morphological mutation on the arthropod community and the impacts of predators on a principal insect herbivore. Oecologia.135: 3950. Soerjani, M., 1998. Current trend in pesticide use in some Asian countries. Envir. Implic. Res. Pesticide., International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria. 21934. Rev. Appl. Entomol. (A), 77 (1): 71: 1989. Torres, J. B. and J. R. Ruberson. 2005. Canopy and Ground dwelling predatory arthropods in commercial Bt and non-Bt cotton fields: Patterns and mechanisms. Environ. Entomol. 34:1242-1256. Van Den Bosch, R. 1978. The Pesticide Conspiracy. University of California Press, Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA.