Rapeseed- mustard (gobhi sarson) crop is a vital source of edible oil and is vulnerable to more than three dozen insect pests in India. Among them, the mustard aphid Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.) is a major pest on rapeseed mustard. In the current investigations, the plant derivative extract (Brahmastra (BA)) was characterized, the composition of active ingredients from individual components was identified, and their role is correlated with field efficacy. The BA was employed at 7.5, 10.0 and 12.5 litres ha− 1 against L. erysimi on gobhi sarson under organic farming conditions. All treatments were applied two times. We found that active ingredients such as phytols act as antifeedants and metabolite inhibitors, while Nimbin, a triterpenoid, might provide fungicidal activity. Other components include ryenosin, copaene, caryophyllene, and naphthalene, which are attractive and antibacterial. BA employed at 12.5 litres ha− 1 was found to be most effective against mustard aphids, offering the highest per cent reduction over control (PROC), i.e., 38.1–67.2 and 38.4–58.9% during 2020-21 and 2021-22, respectively, with the non-significant coccinellid population in all treatments. BA employed at 12.5 litres ha− 1 registered the highest seed yield (20.5 and 17.3 q ha− 1) as against control (16.8 and 15.4 qha− 1) for two consecutive years. The economic returns were more elevated in Brahmastra at 12.5 litres (235 USD ha-1) over the other treatments in gobhi sarson. The possible active ingredients identified using GC-MS and FTIR studies are attributed to control the mustard aphids. The plant derivative extract brahmastra emerged as an innovative pest management system, and its effects on non-target organisms or natural enemies is minimal.
Research Article
Plant derivative extracts' (Brahmastra) spectral characterization and their impact on Lipaphis erysimi and natural enemies in oilseed-mustard under organic farming conditions
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4653841/v1
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License
You are reading this latest preprint version
Rapeseed-mustard
Aphid
Brahamastra
FTIR
GC-MS
PROC
India is the world's second-largest producer of rapeseed and mustard, with the crop being grown under irrigation and rainfed conditions during the Rabi season (Dwivedi et al. 2019). In 2022, India produced more than 37 million metric tons of oilseed and mustard combined (Anonymous 2022b). This crop is susceptible to several biotic stressors and insect pests. The rapeseed mustard crop in India is affected by about thirty insect pests. Of them, Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.), a mustard aphid, is thought to be the primary pest reducing the yield of rapeseed-mustard crops (Bakhetia and Sekhon 1989; Srivastava and Guleria 2003, Gautam et al. 2019, Bouvet et al 2020). Aphids cause black patches on leaves and stems due to the secretion of honeydews, which hinders photosynthesis (Mishra and Kanwat 2018). This is caused by the growth of black sooty mould. On Brassica species, the mustard aphid has been found to cause a yield loss of 30–35% (Phadke 1985), potentially increasing to 70% (Bhatti et al. 1976). The indiscriminate or careless application of broad-spectrum insecticides causes aphids to develop resistance, which can lead to phytotoxic effects, beneficial species death, adverse effects on the agro-ecosystem, and hazards to human health also (McIntire et al. 1989; Campiche et al. 2006). Therefore, it is essential to find more affordable and environmentally safe ways to control pests without affecting the agro-ecosystem.
In recent years, various workers have focused their research on using either various bio-rational products or plant derivative extracts instead of using chemical insecticides to manage important pests on different crops. Over 2400 plant species contain pesticidal properties (Thacker 2002). Feeding by insects gets deterred or inhibited by several different plant allelochemicals (Koul 2005). These products are more compatible with the environmental aspects, safer and eco-friendly with plant and human health (Singh and Lal 2012). When applied to crop, they do not leave any residue. A variety of modes of action have been predicted by the allelochemical action of organic products containing azadirachtin, salannin and meliontriol, which comprise potent insect growth regulators, feeding deterrents, ovipositional deterrence causing repellent effects, reduced fitness, sterility, production of distorted adults and environment tenacity (Isman 2006). Agniastra, a plant derivative extract applied at 2 per cent acts is superior product against fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in Rabi sorghum due to the presence of a mixture of phenols with known pesticidal properties, working synergistically (Kavitha 2009). Agniastra also exhibits repellent, feeding deterrent and ovicidal activities against third-instar larvae of Spodoptera litura (Anees (2018). Brahamastra, and an another plant derivative extract, Agniastra together cause the highest relative feeding inhibition (1.25 and 1.19) in cut worms, Agrotis ipsilon Hufnagel (Joshi et al 2020).
A combination of different bio-rational products to act as eco-friendly and cost-effective alternative against L. erysimi in rapeseed mustard has been reported (Kavitha 2009; Pravin et al. 2021). In current investigations, the plant derivative extract (Brahmastra) was characterized. The composition of active ingredients from individual components was identified and their mechanism of action was correlated with recent reports. Further, the field studies were undertaken to manage L. erysimi through Brahamastra in rapeseed-mustard under organic farming conditions.
2.1 Preparation of brahamastra: a plant derivative extract
Around 30-50 litre capacity metallic pot was taken wherein 1 litre of fresh cow urine was added to paste of freshly collected 500 g (50% w/v) neem leaves (Azadirachta indica L.), 200 g (20% w/v) karanj leaves (Millettia pinnata Fab.), 200 g (20% w/v) guava leaves (Psidium guajava L.), 200 g (20% w/v) papaya leaves (Carica papaya L.) and 200 g (20% w/v) castor leaves (Ricinus communis L.) as shown in Supplementary Fig S1. The mixture was boiled 3-4 times under low flame with continuous stirring. While boiling, the contents in the vessel were covered with a lid. Then, the mixture was allowed to cool for 48 hours so that all the alkaloids get properly dissolved. One minute morning and evening stirring was carried out till 48 hours, and the content was filtered by using muslin cloth to get the final product. This final product was applied to the crop as per devised treatments against test insect (Devrat 2019).
2.2 Methanolic extraction of composites in brahmastra
The leaves of different plant materials (A. indica, M. pinnata, P. guajava, C. papaya, R. communis) which are used to prepare brahmastra were gathered from inside the campus of Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India. The fundamental procedure involved pre-washing, freeze- or air-drying plant materials, grinding to create a homogeneous sample that frequently enhances the kinetics of analytic extraction and increases the surface contact between the sample and the solvent system. When preparing the extract from plant samples, prior care was taken to ensure that any potentially active ingredients were not lost, altered, or destroyed. The 20 grams of dried and grounded leaves was subjected to extraction of active ingredients in a Soxhlet extractor (JSGW, India) using 250 millilitres of methanol (HPLC grade, Sigma Aldrich 99.99 %) and boiled at 60 oC for eight hours. Using Whatmann No. 1 filter paper, the methanolic extracts were filtered and concentrated under reduced pressure at 40°.
2.3 Characterization of brahmastra extract
2.3.1 UV VIS spectroscopy analysis : Using a 10-mm cell at room temperature and a double beam UV-visible spectrophotometer (Horiba, Japan: UV/VIS3000 +) with a 2 nm slit width, a UV-visible spectrophotometric examination was performed on the brahmastra extract. Spectrophotometer has a spectral bandwidth of 0.5, 1, 2, 5 nm with a wavelength range of 190 to 1100 nm. For proximate analysis, the extract was seen in both visible and UV light at wavelengths between 300 and 800 nm. The extract was filtered through Whatman No. 1 filter paper and centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 minutes in order to prepare it for UV-VIS spectrophotometer examination.
2.3.2 FTIR analysis: Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) was employed to determine the extract's distinctive functional groups. It offers the structural information that is often gleaned from the absorption spectra of a molecule. Brahmastra extract was poured directly on Kbr window to obtain the FTIR spectra. The measurement was done under ATR mode. The infrared spectrometer from Agilent, UK was used to obtain the FTIR spectra. The scanning range for the sample was 4000–650 cm-1. Both the FTIR and UV-VIS peak values were determined.
2.3.3 Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis : Various active ingredients were worked out by GC-MS of various individual plant materials used for its preparation. The GC-MS analysis was performed on the methanolic extract of leaves of dried Neem, Karanj, Guava, Papaya and Castor, using a Shimadzu QP 2010 Ultra system. An AOC-20i auto sampler and a gas chromatograph connected to a mass spectrometer (GC-MS) device made up the system. The following circumstances were met when the analysis was carried out: With a 30 meter length and 0.25 mm diameter, the Restek RtxR-5 column—which is composed of 95% dimethylpolysiloxane and 5% diphenyl - was used in electron impact mode at 70 eV of energy. As the carrier gas, 99.999% pure helium gas was used, flowing at a steady rate of 1 ml/min. A split ratio of 70: 1 was used and an injection volume of 1.0 microliters was chosen. A constant temperature of 280 oC was maintained for the injector. The oven temperature was initially set to 40 °C and held isothermally for 5 min. The temperature was then increased by 6 °C per minute until 280 °C was reached. Finally, the oven temperature was maintained isothermally at 70 °C for 15 min. Mass spectra were obtained with an electron energy of 70 electron volts (eV), a scan interval of 0.5 seconds, and a fragment mass of 40–550 daltons (Da). The cumulative duration of the GC process was 60 minutes. More than three datasets was analysed.
2.3.4 Identification of compounds: The database of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was utilized to interpret the mass spectrum (GC-MS).The mass spectrum of the unidentified component was compared to the mass spectra of known components stored in the NIST library.
2.4 Field evaluation of brahmastra
2.4.1 Experimental plot preparation : The current investigations were carried out at the Research Area, School of Organic Farming, Punjab Agricultural University (PAU) at district Ludhiana in Punjab state of India. A canola gobhi sarson variety- GSC 7 was grown during Rabi season in year 2020-21 and 2021-22 and applied with farm yard manure (Anonymous, 2022) purely under organic farming conditions.
2.4.2 Experimental plot design : Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) was followed with a total of four treatments applied to control mustard aphid in gobhi sarson viz., T1: BA @ 7.5 litres, T2: BA @ 10.0 litres, T3: BA @ 12.5 litres against T4: Untreated control. A plot size of 5m x 4m (20 m2) was kept in each replication. Three replications were kept in each treatment. 12 plots was analyzed for two consecutive years.
2.4.3 Spray and monitoring : Generally, the brahamastra was sprayed twice; first spray at economic threshold level (50-60 aphids/10 cm terminal portion of central shoot) and second spray 7 days after first spray. The incidence of mustard aphid (aphid counts/10 cm terminal portion of central shoot) was recorded on five randomly tagged plants in each replicated plot before spray, 1, 3 and 7 days after spray (DAS). Record of natural enemies (coccinellids/plant) was also made on 5 randomly tagged plants in each treatment. The phytotoxic effect was also recorded. The seed yield and economic returns for managing mustard aphid in oilseed –mustard were also worked out.
2.4.5 Clinical analysis of bovine urine : The clinical analysis for biochemical profiling of bovine urine, including cow was also conducted by taking fresh urine of different dairy animals, viz. cow (HF), Buffalo, Desi Cow, Goat and Cross Breed Cow, from Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, Punjab.
2.4.6 Microbial analysis of brahamastra: The shelf life of brahamastra was assessed through its laboratory storage up to 180 days and working out its various quality parameters through microbial analysis.
Statistical Analysis
The data was first input in Excel program and finally analyzed by ANOVA using RCBD design through CPCS 1 program (Cheema and Singh, 1991).
3.1 UV-Vis Characterization : The phytoconstituents contained in the brahmastra extract of plant derivative were identified using the UV-VIS analysis. To determine which compounds included aromatic rings, chromophores, σ-bonds, and a single pair of electrons, UV-visible spectra were used. Owing to the correct baseline and strong peaks, the qualitative UV-VIS profile of the methanolic extract of brahmastra was obtained in the range from 200 to 750 nm (Fig 1). The absorption spectrum of brahmastra extract is nearly transparent in the visible spectral range. The peaks at 296 nm (band I) and 308 nm (band II) were discovered to represent flavonoids and their derivatives (Mabry et al 1970, Saxena et al. 2012, Kalaichelvi and Dhivya 2017; Renuka et al. 2016). Flavonoids and phenolic compounds have distinct absorption spectra, which can be explained by the presence of aromatic rings and other rings (Patle et al. 2020). There are phenolic compounds in the extract from the current study because it was previously that the presence of peaks ranging from 280 to 330 nm is suggestive of phenolic derivatives identified (Johnson and Fathima 2018).
3.2 FTIR analysis : The FTIR analysis reveals the presence of many functional groups in the leaf extracts, including alcohols, phenols, alkanes, carboxylic acids, aldehydes, ketones, alkenes, primary amines, aromatics, esters, ethers, alkyl halides, and aliphatic amine compounds (Fig 2). The spectral peaks are present at 1017 cm-1 belongs to C–O group corresponds to alcohols, carboxylic acids, esters, and ethers while peak at 1630 cm-1. 1738 cm-1, 2339 cm-1, 2854 cm-1, 2930 cm-1 belongs to C=C and C=C stretch namely alkenes and alkynes. The stretching vibration of C–H band at 2854 and 2930 cm−1 could be attributed to the presence of CH2 and CH3 group, which indicates the presence of terpenes. The peak at 3318 cm-1corresponds to O–H stretch belongs to Alcohols, phenols (hydrogen bonding) functional group, which have been reported to exhibit antioxidant activities (Gendrin et al. 2008; Ashokkumar and Ramaswamy 2014, Kumar et al 2015). The presence of functional groups serves as an indicator of different biological activities of plant leaves involved to control the insect pests such as aphids (Kumari et al. 2022).
3.3 GC-MS analysis : GC-MS chromatogram of the methanolic extracts of individual components used to make brahmastra extracts including, Neem, Karanj, Guava, Papaya and Castor leaves are shown in Supplementary Fig. S2- S6 and have been identified after comparison of the mass spectra with NIST library supplementary tables S1 – S5, indicating the presence of several phytocomponents responsible for per cent reduction of aphids on rapeseed mustard crop. The major components having specific function was enlisted in Table 1. The karanj leaves have Benzene acetaldehyde with antifeedant activity while n-Hexadecanoic acid (synonym: Linolenic acid; α-Linolenic acid), Octadecatrieonic acid (synonym: Palmitic acid)), are fatty acid possesses some biological activity such as anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, nematicide and pesticide (Sheela and Uthayakumari 2013; Alli and Mangamoori 2014). The phytols present in the extract have antifeedant activity (Silva et al 2014). Castor Leaf also have fatty acids such as n-Hexadecanoic acid, Docosatrenoic acid and Phytols. The squalene present in castor extract has antibacterial, antioxidant and pesticide activity while dl-alpha-Tocopherol, Gamma- Sitostreol has antioxidant activity (Poudel et al. 2023). Guava leaf has copaene which is natural attractant towards fruitfly while Caryophyllene and Napthalene are anti-inflammatory in action. Papaya leaf extract also have n-Hexadecanoic acid, Octadecatrieonic acid and Phytol have similar activities. Neem leaf have 3, 5-Dihydroxy-6-methyl-2, 3-dihydro-4H-pyran-4-one (DDMP), Nimbin, Glucal and Reynosin as a major constituents. DDMP have antioxidant property and Nimbin is a triterpenoid that is thought to be responsible for many of the biological activities of neem oil. It has been reported to have anti-inflammatory, antipyretic, fungicidal, antihistamine, and antiseptic properties (Govindachari et al. 1998) and ryenosin has mycobacterial activity. Glucal present in neem extract is the glycal formed from glucose. It is a chemical intermediate in the synthesis of a variety of oligosaccharides.
Nimbin is one of the insecticidal active compounds naturally present in Neem. It justifies its presence in pesticidal and pharmacological products. This natural pesticide has significant potential because of the actual need for a natural pesticide to protect plants from contaminations and insects (Kannan and Gowda 2019). Endophytes, whose role is to protect the tree from herbivore insects, can also produce Nimbin in the Neem tree (Agasimundin et al. 2019).
Nimbin can be photo-oxidized under laboratory conditions to obtain Nimbinolide and Isonimbinolide. These products reportedly have some insecticidal effects against some pest species. Isonimbolide is more antifeedant and insecticidal than Nimbin and Nimbinolide. Therefore, these photo-oxidation products prevent the development of insects in Neem. However, more research must be conducted to study their activity against other pest species (Simmond et al. 2004). The components of the Neem plant, which can be divided into two groups: isoprenoids which include limonoids, azadirone, nimbin, azadirachtin and non-isoprenoids with polysaccharides and polyphenolics like flavonoids , exhibit a wide range of biological functions like antibacterial , antifungal and anti-tumorigenic (Singh et al. 2022).
3.4 Field evaluation of brahmastra
The sucking pest viz., aphid appeared simultaneously in the later stage of crop growth and their population continued to build up throughout from flowering to the pod formation stages in rapeseed- mustard crop. No most relevant literatures could be searched however; the reports by workers for different pests and crops have been discussed in support of present investigations.
3.5 Aphid incidence
In case of gobhi sarson, the results presented in tables 2 and 3 revealed that the differences in aphid incidence (nymphs/ 10 cm terminal portion of central shoot) in treated and untreated plots were non-significant before first and second spray in all the treatments during 2020-21 and 2021-22.
In 2020-21, the brahamastra @ 12.5 litres ha-1 registered significantly lowest aphid nymphs at 1 DAS (42.08 nymphs), 3 DAS (37.58 nymphs) and 7 DAS (29.98 nymphs) than its lower dosages (10.0 and 7.5 litres ha-1) and the untreated control (67.93, 73.02 and 76.50 nymphs at 1, 3 and 7 DAS, respectively) after first spray (table 1). A similar trend was achieved with an increased aphid reduction after second spray where, brahamastra@ 12.5 litres ha-1 recorded significantly low aphid counts at 1 DAS (30.81 nymphs), 3 DAS (27.02 nymphs) and 7 DAS (22.69 nymphs) as compared to its lower dosages (10.0 and 7.5 litres ha-1) and the untreated control (80.79, 82.48 and 48.78 nymphs at 1, 3 and 7 DAS, respectively).
In 2021-22, the brahamastra @ 12.5 litres ha-1 revealed significantly lesser aphid nymphs at 1 DAS (33.67 nymphs), 3 DAS (27.53 nymphs) and 7 DAS (30.80 nymphs) than its lower dosages (10.0 and 7.5 litres ha-1) and the untreated control (54.67, 58.96 and 56.37 nymphs at 1, 3 and 7 DAS, respectively) after first spray (table 2). A similar trend was there with an increased aphid reduction after second spray where, brahamastra @ 12.5 litres ha-1 recorded significantly lesser aphid counts at 1 DAS (29.77 nymphs), 3 DAS (24.77 nymphs) and 7 DAS (31.80 nymphs) as compared to its lower dosages (10.0 and 7.5 litres ha-1) and the untreated control (57.93, 60.37 and 62.46 nymphs at 1, 3 and 7 DAS, respectively).
The present studies for low aphid incidence with brahamastra in organic farming plots have been supported by Shivanand et al. (2023) who reported high pest reduction for a different pest, i.e., pod borer with brahamastra @ 7.5 litres ha-1 (33.71 %) under natural farming system. Present investigations on effectiveness of brahamastra against mustard aphid in gobhi sarson are in confirmation with Patgar et al. (2021) who also reported brahamastra @ 12.5 litres ha-1 (5% v/v) as one of the promising biorationals for against a different pest, S. frugiperda on sorghum.
3.6 Per cent reduction over control (PROC)
In 2020-21, the brahamastra @ 12.5 litres ha-1 recorded highest PROC at 1 DAS (38.05 %), 3 DAS (48.53 %) and 7 DAS (60.81 %) over its lower dosages (10.0 and 7.5 litres ha-1) after first spray during 2020-21 (Table 1). A similar trend was observed after second spray where, brahamastra @ 12.5 litres ha-1 registered more PROC at 1 DAS (61.86 %), 3 DAS (67.24 %) and 7 DAS (53.49 %).
Similarly, in 2021-22, the brahamastra @ 12.5 litres ha-1 registered higher PROC at 1 DAS (38.41 %), 3 DAS (53.31 %) and 7 DAS (45.36 %) than its lower dosages of 10.0 and 7.5 litres ha-1, (table 2). A similar trend with still better efficacy was achieved in second spray where, brahamastra @ 12.5 litres ha-1 that registered highest PROC at 1 DAS (48.61 %), 3 DAS (58.97 %) and 7 DAS (49.09 %).
A higher pest reduction in soybean pests at 2 DAS (57.49 %) reported by Santhosh (2008) due to brahmasthra antifeedant activity falls in the range (48.53- 67.24 %) reported for mustard aphid in the present current investigations. The efficacy of brahamastra (which is prepared by mixing cow urine with plant materials) against mustard aphid in terms of per cent reduction over control in current investigations are supported by Gahukar (2013) who reported the use of cow urine either singly or in combination with plant parts and neem-based commercial products to show significant synergistic effect to enhance product toxicity causing the pest mortality. Sarangthem et al. (2023) reported the application of agniastra, brahmastra and neemastra effectively to reduce the cotton sucking pests and defoliators as against mustard aphid on gobhi sarson in present studies.
3.7 Natural enemies (coccinellids/plant)
The population of natural enemies was recorded as coccinellid counts per plant, and the differences for mean aphid nymphs in treated and untreated plots were non-significant before and after first and second applications of the treatments in 2020-21 and 2021-22 (Table 3).
3.8 Seed yield (q ha-1)
The brahamastra @ 12.5 litres ha-1 registered significantly highest seed yield (20.50 and 17.25 q ha-1) over the untreated control (16.75 and 15.38 q ha-1) in 2020-21 and 2021-22, respectively (Table 1 and 2).
3.9 Economic returns (in Rs.)
The brahamastra @ 12.5 litres ha-1 registered highest economic returns (Rs. 19671.34 ha-1) (Table 4) over its lower dosages (10.0 and 7.5 litres ha-1).
Present studies were conducted for the management of mustard aphid, L. erysimi in rapeseed-mustard under the organic farming. In overall results, the brahamastra @ 12.5 litres ha− 1 was effective to register low aphid counts, more per cent reduction of mustard aphid, more seed yield and higher economic returns. In addition, brahamastra showed non-toxic effects to the natural enemies as well as non-phytotoxic effects. Thus, the organic extract, brahamastra can hold promise for the control of mustard aphid on gobhi sarson under organic farming conditions and otherwise, when the pest incidence is low under conventional farming system.
A few limitations to the wide adaptability of organic farming could be a low crop yield, no minimum support price (MSP) and non-availability of sale markets for the organic products which make the conventional growers hardly to adopt this practice over the organic growers. Other reasons could be no direct pest mortality and slow mode of action of locally prepared botanical pesticides (like brahamastra). However, such organic products being safer without any harmful effects on human, animals, soil, water and environment over the chemical pesticides could be applied when pest population or its damage on the crop is at the initial stages.
PROC: Per cent reduction over control; et al.: Et alia (co-workers); DAS: Days after spray; ETL: Economic threshold level; L-1: Per litre; q: Quintal; ha-1: per hectare.
Acknowledgements
Authors are thankful to Dr. Sohan Singh Walia (Principal Agronomist-cum-Director, School of Organic Farming), Dr. Charanjit Singh Aulakh (Principal Agronomist-cum-Ex-Director, School of Organic Farming), Amandeep Singh Sidhu (Agronomist-cum-Farm Manager), Dr. (Mrs.) Gulab Pandove (Microbiologist) and Dr. Ranjit Singh (Asstt Prof, LPT) for the technical and farm inputs during current investigations. We thank Dr. Sumeer Razdan, Incharge, Central University of Punjab, INDIA for GCMS analysis of methanolic plant extracts.
Author contribution
The idea conceived by SS. The characterization studies were done by MSS. SS and MSS did the data analysis. The manuscript was written and reviewed equally by MSS and SS.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Funding Information
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana (INDIA) has provided the financial support for this research work.
- Agasimundin V B, Rangiah K, Sheetal A, Kole, C (eds.), Neem Microbiome, The Neem Genome, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 111-123 (2019).
- Alli, K., Mangamoori, L. N., 201: Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial activities of root, stem and leaves of Holoptelea integrifolia against pathogenic bacteria. Asian J Microbiol Biotechnol Environ Sci 16:145-54. (2014)
- Anees, M. M., 2018 : Bioefficacy of some organic products against Spodoptera litura (Fab.). M Sc thesis, Department of Entomology, CSK HPKV, Palampur. 79p. (2018)
- Anonymous, 2022: Volume of oilseeds produced in India in financial year 2022, by type. Statista Research Department, https://www.statista.com/statistics/621157/oilseed-production-by-type-india/
- Ashokkumar, R., Ramaswamy, M., 2014: Phytochemical screening by FTIR spectroscopic analysis of leaf extracts of selected Indian Medicinal plants, International Journal of Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 3 (1): 395-406.
- Bakhetia, D. R. C., Sekhon, B. S., 1989: Insect pests and their management in rapeseed mustard. J Oilseed Res 6: 269-99.
- Bhatti, M. A., Saeed, M., Chattan, N., Iqbal. S., 1976: Host plant resistance and importance to insect population suppression in cotton crop. Proc. Cott. Prod, 1, 1, Fertilizer Co. Ltd, Pakistan, 132-142.
- Bouvet, J. P. R., Urbaneja, A., Monzó, C., 2021: Aphid predators in citrus crops: the least voracious predators are the most effective. J Pest Sci 94, 321–333.
- Campiche, S., Becker, S. K., Ridreau, C., Tarradellas, J., 2006: Effects of insect growth regulators on the non target soil arthropod Folsoma candida (Collembola). J Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 63: 216-225.
- Cheema, H. S., Singh, B., 1991: Software statistical package CPCS-1. Department of Statistics, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India.
- Devrat, A., 2019: Kamm Lagat Prakritik Krishi, Swami Sharda Yog, Prakritik env Ayurved Chakitsa Sansthan, Gurukul, Kurkshetra, Raj Bhawan, Shimla. 144pp.
- Dwivedi, S. A., Singh, R. S., Pragnabharathi, D. R., 2019: The screening of mustard varieties resistance against mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi Kalt. Plant Cell Biotechnol Molec Bio 20: 397-408.
- Gahukar, R. T., 2013: Cow urine: A potential biopesticide. Indian J Entomol 75: 212-216.
- Gautam, M. P., Singh, S. N., Kumar, P., Yadav, S. K., Singh, D. P., Pande, M. K., 2019: Mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt) (Hemiptera: Aphididae): A review. The Pharm Inn J 8: 90-95.
- Gendrin, C., Roggo, Y., Collet, C., 2008: Pharmaceutical applications of vibrational chemical imaging and chemometrics: a review . J Pharm Biomed Anal 48: 533-53.
- Govindachari, T. R., Suresh, G., Gopalakrishnan, G., Banumathy, B., Masilamani S., 1998: Identification of antifungal compounds from the seed oil of Azadirachta indica. Phytoparasitica 26: 109-116.
- Hernández-Fernández, M., Cordero-Bueso, G., Ruiz-Muñoz, M., Cantoral, J. M., 2021: Culturable Yeasts as Biofertilizers and Biopesticides for a Sustainable Agriculture: A Comprehensive Review. Plants (Basel) 10:822-829.
- Isman, M. B., 2006: Botanical insecticides, deterrents, and repellents in modern agriculture and an increasingly regulated world. Annu Rev Entomol 51:45-66.
- Johnson, M., Fathima, M. S. A., 2018: Spectroscopic studies on pouzolzia wightii benn. Int J Pharm Pharmaceut Sci10:124-32.
- Joshi, M. J., Verma, K. S., Chandel, R., 2020: Feeding inhibition with bioformulations in cut worms Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel). Indian J Entomol 82: 134-138.
- Kalaichelvi, K., Dhivya, S. M., 2017: Screening of phytoconstituents, UV-VIS spectrum and FTIR analysis of micrococca mercurialis (L.) Benth. Int J Herbal Med 5, pp. 40–44.
- Kannan, R., Gowda, M., 2019: Method to Quantify Plant Secondary Metabolites: Quantification of Neem Metabolites from Leaf, Bark, and Seed Extracts as an Example, The Neem Genome, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 21-30.
- Kavitha, A. S., 2009: Eco friendly practices against major pests in different cropping systems with special reference to groundnut. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad (India).
- Koul, O., 2005: Insect Antifeedants, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
- Kumar, S., and Singh, A., 2014 : Biopesticides for integrated crop management: environmental and regulatory aspects. J Biofert Biopestic 5 . 1-5 (2014).
- Kumar, S. S., Manoj, P., Giridhar, P., 2015: Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) analysis, chlorophyll content and antioxidant properties of native and defatted foliage of green leafy vegetables. J Food Sci Technol 52: 8131-39.
- Kumari, S., Dolma, S. K., Anmol, Sharma, U., Reddy, S. G. E., 2022: Insecticidal activity of extracts, fractions, and pure molecules of Cissampelos pareira Linn. against aphid, Aphis craccivora Koch. Molec 27: 633-636.
- Mabry, T. J., Markham, K. R., Thomas, M. B., 1970: The ultraviolet spectra of flavones and flavonols. In: The Systematic Identification of Flavonoids. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
- McIntyre A N, Allison H, and Pebnab D R, 1989: Pesticides: Issues and options for New Zealand. Ministry of Environment, Wellington, New Zealand. 168p. (1989).
- Mishra, S. K., Kanwat, P. M., 2018: Seasonal incidence of mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.) and its major predator on mustard and their correlation with abiotic factors. J Entomol Zoo Stud 6: 831-36.
- Patgar, R., Biradar, A. P., Prakash, H. T., 2021: Efficacy of biorationals in the management of fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith) in rabi sorghum. J Farm Sci 34: 60-63.
- Patle T. K., Shrivas, K., Kurrey, R., Upadhyay, S., Jangde, R., Chauhan, R., 2020: Phytochemical screening and determination of phenolics and flavonoids in Dillenia pentagyna using UV-Vis and FTIR spectroscopy, Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, 242, 118717.
- Phadke K. G., 1985: Oil Seed Production: Constraints and Opportunities, 1, 1, Mohan Primlani for oxford and IBH publishing Co. Ltd, Division of Entomology, IARI, New Delhi, , 416-17.
- Poudel, P., Petropoulos, S. A., Gioia, F. D., 2023: Plant Tocopherols and Phytosterols and Their Bioactive Properties in Natural Secondary Metabolites, pp 285-319 Springer.
- Renuka, B., Sanjeev, B., Ranganathan, D., 2016 : Evaluation of phytoconstituents of Caralluma nilagiriana by FTIR and UV-VIS spectroscopic analysis. J Pharmacog Phytochem 5: 105 -110.
- Santhosh, M. N., 2008: Evaluation of ITK components against major insect pests of soybean (Glysine max (L.) Merrill). M.Sc thesis. Department of Entomology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharward. pp. 63-72.
- Sarangthem, I., Haldhar, S. M., Mishra, L. K., Thakuria, D., 2023: The book of abstract: international conference on natural farming for revitalizing environment and resilient agriculture (NF-RERA, 2023). Pub: College of Agriculture, CAU, Imphal, pp: 374.
- Saxena, M., Saxena, J., 2012: Evaluation of phytoconstituents of Acorus calamus by FTIR and UV-VIS spectroscopic analysis, Int J Biol Pharma Res 3: 498-501.
- Sheela, D., Utharakumari, 2013 :GC-MS analysis of bioactive constituents from coastal sand dune taxon - Sesuvium Portulacastrum (L.). Biosci Discov 4: 47-53.
- Shivanand, H., Maheswarappa, H. P., Gopal, G. S., Gurumurthy, S. B., Raghunatha, R., Raghavendra, K. S., Sowjanya, T. V., Bhat, D. S., Rahul, P, Ashoka, N., 2023 :Reflex of different pest management modules against sucking insect-pests and pod borer for the safety of beneficial insects in vegetable French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Legume Res. doi10.18805/LR-5068.
- Silva, R. O., Sousa, F. B., Damasceno, S. R., Carvalho, N. S., Silva, V. G., Oliveira, F. R., Sousa, D. P., Aragao, K. S., Barbosa, A. L., Freitas, R. M., Medeiros J, V., 2014: Phytol, a diterpene alcohol, inhibits the inflammatory response by reducing cytokine production and oxidative stress. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 28: 455-64.
- Simmonds, M. S. J., Jarvis, A. P., Johnson, S. J., Graeme, R., Morgan, E. D., 2004: Comparison of anti-feedant and insecticidal activity of nimbin and salannin photo-oxidation products with neem (Azadirachta indica) limonoids. Pest Manage Sci 60: 459 – 464.
- Singh, A., Chatterjee, A., Rakshit, S., Shanmugam, G., Mohanty, L. M., Sarkar, K., 2022: Neem leaf glycoprotein in immunoregulation of cancer. Human Immunol 83: 768-77.
- Srivastava, A., Guleria, S., 2003: Evaluation of botanicals for mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.) control in Brassica. Himanchal J Agric Res 29: 116- 118.
- Thacker, J. R. M., 2002: An introduction to arthropod pest control. J Appl Entomol Zool 3: 241-45.
Table 1. Efficacy of brahamastra against L. erysimi on gobhi sarson (2020-21)
|
Treatment |
Dose ha-1 |
Aphid (nymphs/10 cm terminal portion of the central shoot) |
Yield (q ha-1) |
||||||
|
Pre- Spray |
1 DAS |
PROC |
3 DAS |
PROC |
7 DAS |
PROC |
|||
|
1st Spray |
|||||||||
|
T1: Brahamastra |
7.5 litre |
62.50 |
47.75 (6.97) |
29.71 |
43.25 (6.65) |
40.77 |
39.65 (6.38) |
48.17 |
- |
|
T2: Brahamastra |
10.0 litre |
61.42 |
45.17 (6.79) |
33.51 |
40.67 (6.45) |
44.30 |
37.07 (6.17) |
51.54 |
- |
|
T3: Brahamastra |
12.5 litre |
60.62 |
42.08 (6.56) |
38.05 |
37.58 (6.21) |
48.53 |
29.98 (5.56) |
60.81 |
- |
|
T4: Untreated control |
- |
63.93 |
67.93 (8.31) |
- |
73.02 (8.27) |
- |
76.50 (8.95) |
- |
- |
|
CD (p=0.05) |
NS |
(0.33) |
|
(0.32) |
|
(0.42) |
|
- |
|
|
2nd Spray |
|
||||||||
|
T1: Brahamastra |
7.5 litre |
- |
37.23 (6.19) |
53.92 |
37.98 (6.24) |
53.95 |
33.65 (5.88) |
31.02 |
17.68 |
|
T2: Brahamastra |
10.0 litre |
- |
35.73 (6.06) |
55.77 |
33.48 (5.87) |
59.41 |
29.15 (5.49) |
40.24 |
18.50 |
|
T3: Brahamastra |
12.5 litre |
- |
30.81 (5.61) |
61.86 |
27.02 (5.29) |
67.24 |
22.69 (4.86) |
53.49 |
20.50 |
|
T4: Untreated control |
- |
- |
80.79 (9.35) |
- |
82.48 (9.46) |
- |
48.78 (7.06) |
- |
16.75 |
|
CD (p=0.05) |
- |
(0.33) |
|
(0.49) |
|
(0.39) |
|
0.38 |
|
DAS: Days after Spray; Figures in parentheses are square root transformed means; PROC-Per cent reduction over control
Table 2. Efficacy of brahamastra against L. erysimi on gobhi sarson (2021-22)
|
Treatment |
Dose ha-1 |
Aphid (nymphs/10 cm terminal portion of central shoot) |
Yield (q ha-1) |
||||||
|
Pre- Spray |
1 DAS |
PROC |
3 DAS |
PROC |
7 DAS |
PROC |
|||
|
1st Spray |
|||||||||
|
T1: Brahamastra |
7.5 litre |
50.94 |
40.00 (6.40) |
26.83 |
35.33 (6.03) |
40.08 |
38.13 (6.25) |
32.36 |
- |
|
T2: Brahamastra |
10.0 litre |
50.50 |
36.33 (6.11) |
33.55 |
32.16 (5.76) |
45.45 |
34.67 (5.97) |
38.50 |
- |
|
T3: Brahamastra |
12.5 litre |
50.83 |
33.67 (5.89) |
38.41 |
27.53 (5.34) |
53.31 |
30.80 (5.64) |
45.36 |
- |
|
T4: Untreated control |
- |
51.22 |
54.67 (7.62) |
- |
58.96 (7.74) |
- |
56.37 (7.57) |
- |
- |
|
CD (p=0.05) |
NS |
(0.22) |
|
(0.28) |
|
(0.33) |
|
- |
|
|
2nd Spray |
|
||||||||
|
T1: Brahamastra |
7.5 litre |
- |
36.63 (6.13) |
36.77 |
31.63 (5.71) |
47.61 |
39.03 (6.33) |
37.51 |
15.88 |
|
T2: Brahamastra |
10.0 litre |
- |
33.10 (5.84) |
42.86 |
28.10 (5.39) |
53.45 |
35.67 (6.05) |
42.89 |
16.29 |
|
T3: Brahamastra |
12.5 litre |
- |
29.77 (5.55) |
48.61 |
24.77 (5.08) |
58.97 |
31.80 (5.73) |
49.09 |
17.25 |
|
T4: Untreated control |
- |
- |
57.93 (7.68) |
- |
60.37 (7.83) |
- |
62.46 (7.96) |
- |
15.38 |
|
CD (p=0.05) |
- |
(0.29) |
|
(0.26) |
|
(0.28) |
|
0.53 |
|
DAS: Days after Spray; Figures in parentheses are square root transformed means; PROC-Per cent reduction over control
Table 3. Effect of brahamastra on natural enemies on gobhi sarson
|
Treatment |
Dose ha-1 |
Coccinellids (numbers per plant) |
|||
|
Pre-spray |
1 DAS |
3 DAS |
7 DAS |
||
|
2020-21 |
|||||
|
1st Spray |
|||||
|
T1: Brahamastra |
7.5 litre |
1.70 |
0.80 |
0.70 |
1.50 |
|
T2: Brahamastra |
10.0 litre |
1.10 |
1.10 |
1.00 |
1.50 |
|
T3: Brahamastra |
12.5 litre |
0.70 |
0.50 |
0.50 |
1.80 |
|
T4: Untreated control |
- |
1.00 |
0.80 |
0.80 |
1.10 |
|
CD (p=0.05) |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
|
|
2nd Spray |
|||||
|
T1: Brahamastra |
7.5 litre |
- |
1.60 |
2.80 |
3.30 |
|
T2: Brahamastra |
10.0 litre |
- |
2.30 |
2.40 |
3.00 |
|
T3: Brahamastra |
12.5 litre |
- |
2.30 |
2.60 |
3.30 |
|
T4: Untreated control |
- |
- |
1.80 |
2.30 |
3.30 |
|
CD (p=0.05) |
- |
NS |
NS |
NS |
|
|
2021-22 |
|||||
|
1st Spray |
|||||
|
T1: Brahamastra |
7.5 litre |
2.39 |
2.06 |
2.28 |
2.50 |
|
T2: Brahamastra |
10.0 litre |
2.17 |
1.89 |
2.39 |
2.78 |
|
T3: Brahamastra |
12.5 litre |
2.06 |
2.28 |
2.67 |
2.89 |
|
T4: Untreated control |
- |
2.11 |
2.17 |
2.56 |
2.57 |
|
CD (p=0.05) |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
|
|
2nd Spray |
|||||
|
T1: Brahamastra |
7.5litre |
- |
1.78 |
1.83 |
1.61 |
|
T2: Brahamastra |
10.0 litre |
- |
2.00 |
2.22 |
1.78 |
|
T3: Brahamastra |
12.5 litre |
- |
2.22 |
2.56 |
2.00 |
|
T4: Untreated control |
- |
- |
2.11 |
2.06 |
1.67 |
|
CD (p=0.05) |
- |
NS |
NS |
NS |
|
DAS: Days after Spray
Table 4. Economic benefits in managing L. erysimi on gobhi sarson
|
Treatment |
Dose/ ha |
Mean yield (q/ha) |
Additional yield over control (q/ha) |
Income from additional yield (Rs./ha) |
Cost of treatment (Rs./ha) |
Net additional returns over control (Rs/ha) |
|
T1: Brahamastra |
7.5 L |
16.78 |
0.71 |
5223.01 |
800 |
4423.01 |
|
T2: Brahamastra |
10.0 L |
17.40 |
1.33 |
9783.95 |
900 |
8883.95 |
|
T3: Brahamastra |
12.5 L |
18.88 |
2.81 |
20671.34 |
1000 |
19671.34 |
|
T4: Untreated control |
- |
16.07 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Price (gobhi sarson) = Rs. 7356.35/q; Spray labour = Rs 250/ha; Brahamastra preparing cost @ Rs.20/litre
Table 5. Active ingredients of brahamastra composites (GC-MS- analysis)
|
Brahamastra components |
Composite |
%* |
Activity |
|
Karanj Leaf |
Benzene acetaldehyde |
3.2 |
Anti-feedant |
|
n-Hexadecanoic acid |
28.2 |
Anti-inflamatory, antioxidant, nematicide |
|
|
Phytols |
24.1 |
Feeding inhibitors/Antifeedants |
|
|
Octadecatrieonic acid |
14.2 |
Anti-inflammatory, Nematicide |
|
|
Castor Leaf |
n-Hexadecanoic acid |
8.2 |
Anti-inflamatory, antioxidant, nematicide |
|
Docosatrenoic acid |
4.1 |
Anti feedant |
|
|
Phytol |
9.9 |
Feeding inhibitors/Antifeedants |
|
|
Squalene |
8.2 |
Antibacterial, Antioxidant Immuno stimulant, Pesticide |
|
|
dl-alpha-Tocopherol |
11.6 |
Antioxidant |
|
|
Gamma-Sitostreol |
6.9 |
Antioxidant |
|
|
Guava Leaf |
Copaene |
10.7 |
Natural Attractant (attracting fruitfly) |
|
Caryophyllene |
32.6 |
Anti-Inflamatory |
|
|
Napthalene |
5.4 |
Anti-Inflamatory |
|
|
Squalene |
5.2 |
Antibacterial, Antioxidant, Immunostimulant, Pesticide |
|
|
Papaya Leaf |
n-Hexadecanoic acid |
19.8 |
Anti-inflamatory, antioxidant, nematicide |
|
Phytol |
34.9 |
Feeding inhibitors/Antifeedants |
|
|
Octadecatrieonic acid |
23.1 |
Anti-inflammatory, Nematicide |
|
|
Neem Leaf |
3,5-Dihydroxy-6-methyl-2,3-dihydro-4H-pyran-4-one |
17.4 |
Pesticide |
|
Glucal |
11.3 |
- |
|
|
Nimbin |
1.2 |
anti-inflammatory, antipyretic, fungicidal, antihistamine, and antiseptic |
|
|
Reynosin |
7.9 |
Mycobactericidal activity |
*1% = 10000 ppm (for details, Supplementary information Fig S2- S6, Table S1- S5)
No competing interests reported.