Beauveria Bassiana-A Novel Biocontrol Agent Against The Leaf Webworms of Oil Palm
Beauveria Bassiana-A Novel Biocontrol Agent Against The Leaf Webworms of Oil Palm
Beauveria Bassiana-A Novel Biocontrol Agent Against The Leaf Webworms of Oil Palm
Beauveria bassiana- a novel biocontrol agent against the leaf webworms of Oil palm
Pinnamaneni Rajasekhar1*and Potineni Kalidas2
1
Department of Biotechnology, Sreenidhi Institute of Science and Technology, Yamnampet, Ghatkesar,
R.R.District- 501301, Andhra Pradesh, India.
2
Directorate of Oil Palm Research (ICAR), Pedavegi -534 450, Andhra Pradesh, India
*E-mail: pinnamaneniraj@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
Oil palm, Elaeis guineensis (Jacq.) is an exotic high yielding perennial crop that has been
introduced to India as an irrigated crop. It is a monoecious, bisexual and entomophilous crop and
needs the assistance of a coleopteran weevil, Elaeidobius kamerunicus Faust. for effective
pollination. The palm is attacked by number of leaf web worms that results in heavy losses. The
present study reports the results of comparative assessment of biocontrol agents, such as
Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae with chemical pesticides, such as Carbofuran,
Phorate, Monocrotophos and Phosphamidon against leaf web worms on the Oil palm taking into
account the safety towards the pollinator, E. kamerunicus. The leaf web worm control by
selected biocontrol agents showed more than 90.0% mortality after 21 days of treatment. The
treatment with Beauveria bassiana recorded 98.3% reduction in the number of leaf web worms
after 21st day, which was in contrast to the most efficient chemical pesticide, i.e. Phorate.
However, the comparative assessment revealed that biocontrol efficiency of Beauveria bassiana
in controlling leaf web worm was equivalent to that of with other chemical insecticides.
Beauveria bassiana was found to have no adverse effect on the E. kamerunicus, which is critical
for increasing the yield and viability of the Oil palm.
KEY WORDS: Beauveria bassiana, insecticides, leaf webworms, Oil palm, pollinating weevil
______________________________________________________________________________
www.currentbiotica.com 334
Current Biotica 6(3): 334-341, 2012 ISSN 0973-4031
______________________________________________________________________________
www.currentbiotica.com 335
Current Biotica 6(3): 334-341, 2012 ISSN 0973-4031
______________________________________________________________________________
www.currentbiotica.com 336
Current Biotica 6(3): 334-341, 2012 ISSN 0973-4031
and reliable. However, in case of the results problem, it can be recommended to use
of treatment by Beauveria bassiana, the data biocontrol agent, B. bassiana, which is
shows a consistency as well as reliable reported to be very effective against
estimate. lepidopteron pests that forms puffy white
mat of mycelia on the cuticle causing white
CONCLUSION muscardine disease. The bioagent was found
to be safe to the pollinating weevil,
The leaf web worm control by Elaeidobius kamerunicust contributing to
selected biocontrol agents showed more than the yield and viability of the Oil palm.
90.0% mortality after 21 days of treatment.
The treatment with Beauveria bassiana ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
showed 98.3% reduction in the number of
leaf web worms after 21st day, which was The authors are thankful to the
comparable to the most efficient chemical Director, Directorate of Oil Palm Research
compound, i.e. Phorate. As Oil palm is an (ICAR), Pedavegi for providing the facilities
entomophilous crop, usage of chemical for carrying the work. The assistance
pesticides in controlling the pests may cause rendered by Mr. Asirwadam, Contractual
hazardous affects on the pollinating weevil worker in taking observations is highly
and thereby pollination. To overcome this appreciated.
Table 1: Variation in the number of leaf web worms observed during the treatment by different
agents at selected time period
Days after
Treatments Mean SD SE Min. Max. P
Treatment
Pretreatment Control 53.0 3 2 51 56 < 0.014
Beauveria bassiana 40.0 2 1 38 42
Metarhizium anisopliae 41.0 2 1 39 43
Carbofuran 46.0 4 3 43 51
Sanvex 51.0 5 3 47 56
Phorate 42.0 7 4 34 48
Monocrotophos 46.0 1 1 45 47
Phosphamidon 47.0 6 3 41 52
Day-2 Control 14.0 2 1 12 16 < 0.062
Beauveria bassiana 9.0 4 3 6 14
Metarhizium anisopliae 7.3 6 3 3 14
Carbofuran 10.0 4 2 6 13
Sanvex 9.0 3 2 7 13
Phorate 4.0 3 2 2 7
Monocrotophos 8.7 3 1 6 11
Phosphamidon 4.0 3 2 1 6
Day-4 Control 3.3 3 2 1 7 < 0.331
Beauveria bassiana 3.3 2 1 2 5
Metarhizium anisopliae 5.3 4 2 1 9
Carbofuran 8.7 6 3 5 15
Sanvex 4.3 3 1 2 7
Phorate 2.0 1 1 1 3
Monocrotophos 2.0 1 1 1 3
Phosphamidon 3.7 5 3 1 9
______________________________________________________________________________
www.currentbiotica.com 337
Current Biotica 6(3): 334-341, 2012 ISSN 0973-4031
______________________________________________________________________________
www.currentbiotica.com 338
Current Biotica 6(3): 334-341, 2012 ISSN 0973-4031
Table 2: Temporal variation in the number of leaf web worms recorded during the treatment to
different agents
Days after
Treatments Mean SD SE Min. Max. P
Treatment
Control Pretreatment 53.0 2.6 1.5 51 56 < 0.01
Day-2 14.0 2.0 1.2 12 16
Day-4 3.3 3.2 1.9 1 7
Day-7 3.3 1.5 0.9 2 5
Day-14 0.3 0.6 0.3 0 1
Day-21 2.0 1.7 1.0 1 4
Day-38 4.0 4.4 2.5 1 9
Beauveria Pretreatment 40.0 2.0 1.2 38 42 < 0.01
bassiana
Day-2 9.0 4.4 2.5 6 14
Day-4 3.3 1.5 0.9 2 5
Day-7 4.3 0.6 0.3 4 5
Day-14 4.0 2.6 1.5 1 6
Day-21 0.7 0.6 0.3 0 1
Day-38 1.0 1.0 0.6 0 2
Metarhizium Pretreatment 41.0 2.0 1.2 39 43 < 0.01
anisopliae
Day-2 7.3 5.9 3.4 3 14
Day-4 5.3 4.0 2.3 1 9
Day-7 6.7 2.5 1.5 4 9
Day-14 5.0 1.7 1.0 4 7
Day-21 2.0 1.0 0.6 1 3
Day-38 3.7 3.1 1.8 1 7
Carbofuran Pretreatment 46.0 4.4 2.5 43 51 < 0.01
Day-2 10.0 3.6 2.1 6 13
Day-4 8.7 5.5 3.2 5 15
Day-7 4.0 3.6 2.1 0 7
Day-14 2.3 1.5 0.9 1 4
Day-21 1.7 0.6 0.3 1 2
Day-38 0.7 0.6 0.3 0 1
Sanvex Pretreatment 51.0 4.58 2.65 47 56 < 0.01
Day-2 9.0 3.46 2.00 7 13
______________________________________________________________________________
www.currentbiotica.com 339
Current Biotica 6(3): 334-341, 2012 ISSN 0973-4031
______________________________________________________________________________
www.currentbiotica.com 340
Current Biotica 6(3): 334-341, 2012 ISSN 0973-4031
Disclaimer: Statements, information, scientific names, spellings, inferences, products, style, etc. mentioned in Current Biotica are attributed to the authors
and do in no way imply endorsement/concurrence by Current Biotica. Queries related to articles should be directed to authors and not to editorial board.
______________________________________________________________________________
www.currentbiotica.com 341