**3.3 Cultural practices**

Different cultural practices have been advocated from time to time; however, these traditional practices and those improved happen to vary from place to place and have responded in a varied manner. Intercropping green gram with cereals/millets (maize, sorghum and pearl millet) is often in vogue. Green gram is sown by keeping the row to row spacing at 30 cm and plant to plant distance at 10 cm. In the inter-cropped system, green gram and maize (in 1: 1 ratio) are sown in alternate rows at a distance of 30cm apart. In spring planted sugarcane, 1 or 2 rows of green gram can be planted in between the sugarcane rows. Intercropping of green gram can also be done in *Mentha*. Similarly, in the newly planted poplar crop and in horticultural plants or orchards (papaya, pomegranate) intercropping green gram is a viable option.

Weed-free crop of green gram harboured lower populations of major insect pests, while weedy crop was conducive to their population build-up. With respect to insect infestation, keeping the field weed-free throughout the crop period was equivalent to removal of weeds up to the vegetative-3 stage of the crop. The effectiveness of weeding however varied according to the pest species (Rekha Das Dutta, 1997).

Showler and Greenberg (2003) observed that the presence of weeds in cotton was associated with greater populations of 9 of the 11 prey arthropod groups, and 9 of the 13 natural enemy arthropod groups counted. These trends were mostly evident late in the season when weed biomass was greatest. Weed-free cotton harboured more cotton aphids (*Aphis gossypii*), early in the season and silver leaf whiteflies (*Bemisia argentifoli*) later in the season than weedy cotton on some of the sampling dates. Diversity (Shannon's index) within the selected arthropod groups counted was significantly greater in DVAC samples from the weed foliage than from weed-free cotton plants during both years, and diversity on weedy cotton plants was greater than on weed-free cotton plants during 2000. Boll weevil oviposition injury to squares was unaffected by weeds, but the higher weed-associated predator

In a case study on the impact of farmscaping in greengram on the major insect pests and their natural enemy complex at the College farm, Udaipur, India, a comparison of the seasonal mean abundance of the major foliage feeding and pod damaging insect pests showed a significant difference among the treatments. The Shanon Weiner diversity index was the maximum under green gram + marigold weeded and unweeded farmscape conditions being 0.7936 and 0.7790. The sole crop of green gram had the lowest diversity index of 0.6622 for weeded and 0.6863 for unweeded conditions. Comparisons made for the associated natural enemy complex in the different treatments showed that the farmscape treatment green gram + niger under unweeded conditions had the highest Shanon Weiner diversity index of 1.5932 followed by that for green gram + marigold under unweeded conditions with an index of 1.5716. Green gram sole crop had the lowest diversity indices being 1.2882 and 1.3854 under weeded and unweeded conditions, respectively. Niger, by virtue of being taller than green gram, acts as a physical barrier to blister beetle infestation on green gram floral parts. Some blister beetles may happen to alight on niger flowers and cause some damage, thereby safeguarding damage to green gram. Marigold is preferred by *Helicoverpa armigera* (Hubner) for laying eggs; thereby, the main crop of mung bean/green gram significantly escapes the pest infestation

Different cultural practices have been advocated from time to time; however, these traditional practices and those improved happen to vary from place to place and have responded in a varied manner. Intercropping green gram with cereals/millets (maize, sorghum and pearl millet) is often in vogue. Green gram is sown by keeping the row to row spacing at 30 cm and plant to plant distance at 10 cm. In the inter-cropped system, green gram and maize (in 1: 1 ratio) are sown in alternate rows at a distance of 30cm apart. In spring planted sugarcane, 1 or 2 rows of green gram can be planted in between the sugarcane rows. Intercropping of green gram can also be done in *Mentha*. Similarly, in the newly planted poplar crop and in horticultural plants or orchards (papaya, pomegranate)

Weed-free crop of green gram harboured lower populations of major insect pests, while weedy crop was conducive to their population build-up. With respect to insect infestation, keeping the field weed-free throughout the crop period was equivalent to removal of weeds up to the vegetative-3 stage of the crop. The effectiveness of weeding however varied

Showler and Greenberg (2003) observed that the presence of weeds in cotton was associated with greater populations of 9 of the 11 prey arthropod groups, and 9 of the 13 natural enemy arthropod groups counted. These trends were mostly evident late in the season when weed biomass was greatest. Weed-free cotton harboured more cotton aphids (*Aphis gossypii*), early in the season and silver leaf whiteflies (*Bemisia argentifoli*) later in the season than weedy cotton on some of the sampling dates. Diversity (Shannon's index) within the selected arthropod groups counted was significantly greater in DVAC samples from the weed foliage than from weed-free cotton plants during both years, and diversity on weedy cotton plants was greater than on weed-free cotton plants during 2000. Boll weevil oviposition injury to squares was unaffected by weeds, but the higher weed-associated predator

(Unpublished data – Swaminathan, 2011).

intercropping green gram is a viable option.

according to the pest species (Rekha Das Dutta, 1997).

**3.3 Cultural practices** 

populations mainly occurred after most squares had become less vulnerable bolls. Weed competition resulted in lower lint yields of 89 and 32 per cent in 2 years.

Some of the more recent literature on the impact of intercropping on insect pest situation has been reviewed herein. Populations of *O*. *phaseoli* on *V*. *mungo* and *B*. *tabaci* on cowpea increased when these crops were intercropped with maize. The incidence of yellow mosaic was lower in intercrops of *V*. *radiata* with maize and sorghum than in monocultures. Conversely, pod borer damage to *V*. *radiata* was lower in monocultures than in intercrops. There was no significant difference in populations of *A*. *soccata* and *C*. *partellus* on pure and intercrops (Natarajan *et al*., 1991). Rekha Das Dutta (1996) observed that intercropping *V*igna *radiata* with maize resulted in reduced populations of the pests *viz*., *Monolepta signata*, *Aphis craccivora*, *Nacolea vulgaris*, *Nezara viridula* and *Riptortus linearis* on *V*. *radiata* than when intercropped with other legumes like *Vigna umbellata* (rice bean), *Glycine max* (soybean), *Vigna mungo* (black gram) and *Arachis hypogea* (groundnut). Intercropping maize and sorghum along the periphery significantly reduced the whitefly (*Bemisia tabaci*) population and the damage caused by the pod borers (*Maruca testulalis* [*M*. *vitrata*] and *Lampides boeticus*). All intercrops resulted in increased yields over the sole crops; however, maize and sorghum intercropped along the periphery was more promising (Dar *et al*., 2003).

Various forms of farmscaping in the form of permanent hedgerows or temporary insectary strips in vegetable fields to increase the activity of beneficial insects have shown that data on the effectiveness of these practices is sparse at best, as is information on the best plant species to use. The primary pest target is often aphids. The use of sweet alyssum (*Lobularia maritima*) provides long periods of flowering and fits into most grower operations, yet was chosen originally for its ability to attract and provide resources to hymenopteran aphid parasitoids. Now that the aphid species of concern has shifted from green peach aphid (*Myzus persicae*) to lettuce aphid, the natural enemy of greatest importance has also shifted to hoverfly (Diptera: Syrphidae) larvae (Chaney, 2004).

Higher numbers of arthropod pests were observed in onion plants 30 m from the marigold strip, while higher numbers of predators and parasitoids were found at 5 m distance. Species richness and Shannon's diversity index were higher at 5 m from marigold. Therefore, marigold rows next to onion fields resulted in higher number of entomophagous species, potentially enhancing the natural control of onion pests (Silveira et al., 2009).

Evaluating the suitability of some farmscaping plants as nectar sources for the parasitoid wasp, *Microplitis croceipes* (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), Nafziger and Fadamiro (2011) observed that the greatest longevity (~16 days) was recorded for honey-fed wasps (positive control). Buckwheat significantly increased the lifespan of female and male wasps by at least two-fold as compared to wasps provided water only (longevity=3-4 days). Licorice mint significantly increased female longevity and numerically increased male longevity. Sweet alyssum slightly increased longevity of both sexes though was not significantly different from the water only control. Females had a significantly longer longevity than males on all the diet treatments. The greatest carbohydrate nutrient levels (sugar content and glycogen) were recorded in honey-fed wasps followed by wasps fed buckwheat, whereas very little nutrients were detected in wasps provided sweet alyssum, licorice mint or water only. However, female wasps were observed to attempt to feed on all three flowering plant species.

Insect Pests of Green Gram *Vigna radiata* (L.) Wilczek and Their Management 213

Gelechiidae

Apionidae

Plataspidae

Hemiptera

**Order/Family Plant Part Damaged** 

Cuculionidae Stem

Arctiidae Foliage

Coreidae Pods

Noctuidae Foliage

Aphididae Leaves

Dinidoridae Plant parts

Pyrgomorphidae Leaves

Pyrgomorphidae Pods

Pyrgomorphidae Leaves

Curculionidae Foliage

Pentatomidae Plant parts, pods

Jassidae Leaves

Noctuidae Pods

Sphingidae Foliage

Pyralidae Seeds in pods

Gelechiidae Flowers and pods

Bruchidae Pods

Lycaenidae Flowers and pods

Shoot webber feeding within

Buds, flowers and pods

Plant parts, leaf axils, shoots

**Insect Pest Taxonomic Position** 

*Alcidodes collaris* Pasc. Coleoptera

*Amsacta albistriga* W. Lepidoptera

*Anarsia* spp*.* Lepidoptera

*Anoplocnemis phasiana* Fabr. Hemiptera

*Anticarsia irrorata* (F.) Lepidoptera

*Aphis craccivora* Koch. Hemiptera

*Apion ampulum* Fst. Coleoptera

*Aspongopus janus* Fabr. Hemiptera

*Attractomorpha crenulata* Fabr. Orthoptera

*Callosobruchus* spp. Coleoptera

*Catechrysops cnejus* Fabricius Lepidoptera

*Chrotogonus* spp. Orthoptera

*Colemania sphenarioides* B. Orthoptera

*Coptosoma cribria* Fabr. Hemiptera

*Cyrtozemia dispar* Pascoe Coleoptera

*Dolycoris indicus* Stal. Hemiptera

*Eucosma melanaula* Meyr Lepidoptera

*Helicoverpa armigera* (Hubner) Lepidoptera

*Herse convolvuli* L. Lepidoptera

*Hyalospila leuconeurella* Rag. Lepidoptera

*Empoasca kerri* Pruthi *Empoasca* spp.

Insect pest tolerant/resistant varieties have been evaluated often, but there is no single variety of green gram that might offer resistance to the major insect pests; however, some varieties are less preferred than others. Of 20 cultivars of green gram (*Vigna radiata*) screened in the field in Madhya Pradesh, India, for resistance to 8 species of insect pests, PDM-84-139 and ML-382 were promising against *Caliothrips indicus*, an unidentified chrysomelid and a galerucid beetle, BM-112 against *Raphidopalpa* sp. [*Aulacophora* sp.] and TAM-20, PDM-84-143 and Pusa-105 against *Aphis craccivora*, *Amrasca kerri* [*Empoasca kerri*] and *Myllocerus undecimpustulatus* (Devasthali and Joshi, 1994). Green gram cultivar, MV 1-6 was relatively less susceptible to both paddy grasshopper and cotton grey weevil. MI 7-21 was found to be promising against pea thrips, semilooper and cotton grey weevil but was most susceptible to paddy grasshopper. MI-131-(Ch) was less attacked by blue beetle. The variety MI-67-9 was less infested by bean aphid but was most susceptible to blue beetle. Infestation of jassid was comparatively less in varieties MI-67-3 and MI-29-22 (Devasthali and Saran, 1998).

### **3.4 Bio-pesticide use**

Pesticides of biological origin offer good response in the management of some of the major insect pests of green gram. The fungus, *Nomuraea rileyi* (2 x 106 spores/ml) has been reported highly virulent under laboratory trials resulting in approximately 97.5, 93.33, 80.0 and 100.0 per cent mortality of *Thysanoplusia orichalcea*, *Spodoptera litura*, *Spilosoma obliqua* and *Helicoverpa armigera*, respectively (Ingle *et al*., 2004). The fungus, *Paecilomyces lilacinus* (0.02%) caused higher reduction in the larval population of *Lampides boeticus*, followed by *Verticillium lecani* (0.02%) and *Beauveria bassiana* (0.02%). While comparing the *neem* products, *neem* (*Azadirachta indica*) oil (0.05%) was better than *neem* seed kernel extract (5%) in reducing the pod borer larval population (Arivudainambi and Chandar, 2009).

#### **3.5 Integrated approach**

Integrated management strategies involve the use of resistant varieties, use of disease free seeds, manipulation of cultural practices, management of vectors, and biological and chemical control methods (Raguchandar *et al.,* 1995; Vidhyasekaran and Muthamilan, 1995). In a 2-year study (2001 and 2002), the maximum yield of maize and green gram in the intercropped pattern (1: 1 ratio) and that as sole crop of green gram, as well as the maximum rupee equivalent yield value was recorded for the management schedule comprising release of the green lace wing, *Chrysoperla carnea* at 25 DAS, spray of *Azadirachta indica* oil at 40 DAS and a contact insecticide, endosulfan at 55 DAS (Kan Singh *et al*., 2009). Earlier, Kan Singh (2002) observed that for every unit increase in the larval density there was a significant and subsequent decrease in the number of pods per plant. The linear relationship between larval density and the reduction in number of pods per plant caused by borer damage was positive and significant for both the years. The increased reduction in number of pods as a result of increased larval density was significant. Likewise, for every unit increase in larval density there was a significant reduction in number of grains, which was reflected in the losses caused. The estimated losses to grains were the maximum at a larval density of 4 per plant, 78.87 and 68.01 per cent for *kharif* 2001 and 2002, respectively. Obviously, the linear relationship between larval density and reduction in yield was significantly positive.

Insect pest tolerant/resistant varieties have been evaluated often, but there is no single variety of green gram that might offer resistance to the major insect pests; however, some varieties are less preferred than others. Of 20 cultivars of green gram (*Vigna radiata*) screened in the field in Madhya Pradesh, India, for resistance to 8 species of insect pests, PDM-84-139 and ML-382 were promising against *Caliothrips indicus*, an unidentified chrysomelid and a galerucid beetle, BM-112 against *Raphidopalpa* sp. [*Aulacophora* sp.] and TAM-20, PDM-84-143 and Pusa-105 against *Aphis craccivora*, *Amrasca kerri* [*Empoasca kerri*] and *Myllocerus undecimpustulatus* (Devasthali and Joshi, 1994). Green gram cultivar, MV 1-6 was relatively less susceptible to both paddy grasshopper and cotton grey weevil. MI 7-21 was found to be promising against pea thrips, semilooper and cotton grey weevil but was most susceptible to paddy grasshopper. MI-131-(Ch) was less attacked by blue beetle. The variety MI-67-9 was less infested by bean aphid but was most susceptible to blue beetle. Infestation of jassid was comparatively less in varieties MI-67-3 and MI-29-22 (Devasthali

Pesticides of biological origin offer good response in the management of some of the major insect pests of green gram. The fungus, *Nomuraea rileyi* (2 x 106 spores/ml) has been reported highly virulent under laboratory trials resulting in approximately 97.5, 93.33, 80.0 and 100.0 per cent mortality of *Thysanoplusia orichalcea*, *Spodoptera litura*, *Spilosoma obliqua* and *Helicoverpa armigera*, respectively (Ingle *et al*., 2004). The fungus, *Paecilomyces lilacinus* (0.02%) caused higher reduction in the larval population of *Lampides boeticus*, followed by *Verticillium lecani* (0.02%) and *Beauveria bassiana* (0.02%). While comparing the *neem* products, *neem* (*Azadirachta indica*) oil (0.05%) was better than *neem* seed kernel extract (5%) in reducing the pod borer larval population (Arivudainambi and Chandar,

Integrated management strategies involve the use of resistant varieties, use of disease free seeds, manipulation of cultural practices, management of vectors, and biological and chemical control methods (Raguchandar *et al.,* 1995; Vidhyasekaran and Muthamilan, 1995). In a 2-year study (2001 and 2002), the maximum yield of maize and green gram in the intercropped pattern (1: 1 ratio) and that as sole crop of green gram, as well as the maximum rupee equivalent yield value was recorded for the management schedule comprising release of the green lace wing, *Chrysoperla carnea* at 25 DAS, spray of *Azadirachta indica* oil at 40 DAS and a contact insecticide, endosulfan at 55 DAS (Kan Singh *et al*., 2009). Earlier, Kan Singh (2002) observed that for every unit increase in the larval density there was a significant and subsequent decrease in the number of pods per plant. The linear relationship between larval density and the reduction in number of pods per plant caused by borer damage was positive and significant for both the years. The increased reduction in number of pods as a result of increased larval density was significant. Likewise, for every unit increase in larval density there was a significant reduction in number of grains, which was reflected in the losses caused. The estimated losses to grains were the maximum at a larval density of 4 per plant, 78.87 and 68.01 per cent for *kharif* 2001 and 2002, respectively. Obviously, the linear

relationship between larval density and reduction in yield was significantly positive.

and Saran, 1998).

2009).

**3.4 Bio-pesticide use** 

**3.5 Integrated approach** 


Insect Pests of Green Gram *Vigna radiata* (L.) Wilczek and Their Management 215

Plate 1 (a). Major insect pests of green gram at Udaipur (India)


**Note**: The spider mites also happen to be serious arthropod pests of green gram, foliage especially during the warmer months of the year.

Table 1. Record of insect pests that infest green gram

Orthoptera

Lepidoptera

Hemiptera

Hemiptera

Thripidae

**Note**: The spider mites also happen to be serious arthropod pests of green gram, foliage especially

**Order/Family Plant Part Damaged** 

Lycaenidae Flowers and pods

Pyralidae Tender foliage

Pyralidae Flowers and pods

Meloidae Buds and flowers

Pyralidae Tender foliage

Pentatomidae Plant parts, pods

Pentatomidae Plant parts, pods

Pentatomidae Plant parts, pods

Coreidae Pods

Arctiidae Foliage

Noctuidae Foliage

Lygaeidae Shoots/leaves

Tender leaves and flowers

Cuculionidae Seeds

Gryllidae Pods

Agromyzidae Stem

Cuculionidae Foliage

**Insect Pest Taxonomic Position** 

*Lampides boeticus* (L.) Lepidoptera

*Lamprosema indicata* Fabr. Lepidoptera

*Melanagromyza phaseoli* Coq. Diptera

*Mylabris pustulata* Thunberg Coleoptera

*Myllocerus* spp. Coleoptera

*Nacolea vulgalis* Gn. Lepidoptera

*Nezara viridula* Linneaus Hemiptera

*Pachytychius mungosis* Marsh. Coleoptera

*Plautia fimbriata* (Fabricius) Hemiptera

*Spilosoma obliqua* (W.) Lepidoptera

*Spilostethus pandurus* (Scopoli) Hemiptera

*Spodoptera litura* (Fabr.) Lepidoptera

*Thrips* (*Megalurothrips*) *distans* Ky., Thysanoptera

Table 1. Record of insect pests that infest green gram

*Liogryllus bimaculatus* DeGeer (= *Gryllus bimaculatus*)

*Piezodorus rubrofasciatus* Fabr.

*Riptortus pedestris* Fabr., *R*. *linearis*,

during the warmer months of the year.

*P*. *hybneri* Gmel

*R*. *fuscus*

*Maruca testulalis* G. (= *Maruca vitrata*)

Plate 1 (a). Major insect pests of green gram at Udaipur (India)

Insect Pests of Green Gram *Vigna radiata* (L.) Wilczek and Their Management 217

Plate 1 (c). Major insect pests of green gram at Udaipur (India)

Plate 1 (b). Major insect pests of green gram at Udaipur (India)

Plate 1 (b). Major insect pests of green gram at Udaipur (India)

Plate 1 (c). Major insect pests of green gram at Udaipur (India)

Insect Pests of Green Gram *Vigna radiata* (L.) Wilczek and Their Management 219

Plate 2 (c). The Plate has two different aspects: (1) Benefits of farmscaping in green gram: Niger intercrop helps to escape blister beetle (*Mylabris* spp.) infestation in green gram. (2) Severe pest infestation in sole green gram: blister beetle (*Mylabris* spp.) and the coreid

bug (*Riptortus pedestris*).

Plate 2 (a). Farmscaping in green gram with marigold

Plate 2 (b). Farmscaping in green gram with niger

Plate 2 (a). Farmscaping in green gram with marigold

Plate 2 (b). Farmscaping in green gram with niger

Plate 2 (c). The Plate has two different aspects: (1) Benefits of farmscaping in green gram: Niger intercrop helps to escape blister beetle (*Mylabris* spp.) infestation in green gram. (2) Severe pest infestation in sole green gram: blister beetle (*Mylabris* spp.) and the coreid bug (*Riptortus pedestris*).

Insect Pests of Green Gram *Vigna radiata* (L.) Wilczek and Their Management 221

Kan Singh 2003. Estimation of losses, management of insect pests of mung bean [*Vigna* 

Leclerg, E.L. 1971. Field experiments for assessment of crop losses. *In: Crop loss assessment* 

Mogotsi, K.K., 2006. *Vigna radiata* (L.) R.Wilczek. [Internet] Record from Protabase.

Nafziger, T. D. and Jr. Fadamiro, H. Y. 2011. Suitability of some farmscaping plants as nectar

Pfiffner, L., and Wyss. E. 2004. Use of sown wildflower strips to enhance natural enemies of

Quarles, W., and Grossman, J. 2002. Insectary plants, intercropping and biological control.

Raguchander, T. Rajappan, K. and Prabakar, K. 1995. Evaluation of tale based product of

Rekha Das Dutta, S. K. 1996. Effect of intercropping on infestation of insect pests of

Rekha Das Dutta, S. K. 1997. Effect of weeding on infestation of insect pests of green gram. *Journal of the Agricultural Science Society of North East India*, 10: 136-139. Showler, A. T. and Greenberg, S. M. 2003. Effects of weeds on selected arthropod herbivore

Silveira, L. C. P., Berti Filho, E., Pierre, L. S. R., Peres, F. S. C. and Louzada, J. N. C . 2009.

Singh, K. Sharma, U. S. Swaminathan, R. and Dashora, P. K. 2009. Management of insect

Swaminathan, R., Hussain, T. and Bhati, K. K. 2007. Influence of crop diversity on host

effects on longevity and body nutrients. *Biological Control*, 56: 225 - 229. Natarajan, N. Rao, P. V. S. and Gopal, S. 1991. Effect of intercropping of pulses in cereals on

the incidence of major pests. *Madras Agricultural Journal*, 78: 59-67. Nene, Y. L. 2006. Indian pulses through the millennia. *Asian Agri-history* 10: 179-202.

Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, India.

*weeds.* Edited by Chirappa, L. 2.1/1.2. 1/11.

http://database.prota.org/search.htm.

for Arthropods. CSIRO, Melbourne.

*IPM Practitioner* 24: 1-11.

*Entomology,* 32: 39 - 50.

*Scientia Agricola*, 66: 780 - 787.

63-64.

223.

109.

21: 59-62.

*radiata* (L.) Wilczek] and determination of economic threshold Level against the lycaenid borer (*Lampides boeticus* Linnaeus), Ph. D. Thesis submitted to Maharana

*methods FAO manual on the evaluation and prevention of losses by pests, diseases and* 

Brink, M. & Belay, G. (Editors). PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa/ Ressources végétales de l'Afrique tropicale), Wageningen, Netherlands.

sources for the parasitoid wasp, *Microplitis croceipes* (Hymenoptera: Braconidae):

agricultural pests, pp. 165-186. *In* G. M. Gurr, S. D. Wratten and M. A. Altieri [eds.], Ecological Engineering for Pest Management: Advances in Habitat Manipulation

*Trichoderma viride* of the control of blackgram root rot. *Journal of Biological Control*, 9:

green gram. *Journal of the Agricultural Science Society of North East India*, 9: 220-

and natural enemy populations and on cotton growth and yield. *Environmental* 

Marigold (Tagetes erecta L.) as an attractive crop to natural enemies in onion fields.

pests of *Vigna radiata* (L.) Wilczek. *Applied Ecology and Environmental Research*, 7: 99-

preference by major insect pests of *kharif* pulses. *Indian Journal of Applied Entomology*

#### **4. References**


Acharya, S.S. 1985. *Prices and Price Policy for pulses and cereals*. Sukhadia University, Udaipur

Ali, M. 1998. Research, Development and Management for production of pulses. In: IPM

Arivudainambi, S. and Chandar, A. V. 2009. Management of pulses blue butterfly,

Baldev, B., Ramanujam, S. and Jain, H. K. 2000. Pulse Crops. Oxford IBH Publishing

Banto,S.M. and F.F..Sanchez. 1972. The biology and chemical control of *Callasobruchus chinensis* (Linn) (Coleoptera:Bruchidae) *Philippines Entomologist*, 2: 167–182. Chaney, W. E. 2004. Insectary plants for vegetable crops. *California Conference on Biological* 

Dar, M. H. Rizvi, P. Q. and Naqvi, N. A. 2003. Effect of intercropping on the major insect

Devesthali , S. and Joshi, M. 1994. Infestation and varietal preference of insect pests in green

Devesthali, S. Saran, R. K. 1998. Relative susceptibility of new cultivars of green gram

Dixit, G. P. 2005. Project Coordinator's Report. Annual Group Meet (*kharif*, 2005), Indian

Dufour, R. 2000. Farmscaping to enhance biological control. ATTRA, Fayetteville, AK Online: http://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/farmscaping.pdf Fowler, J. Cohen, L. and Jarvis, P. 1998. *Practical Statistics for Field Biology* (2nd Edition), John

Hammond, R.B. and Pedigo, L.P. 1982. Determination of yield loss relationship for two

Hussain, S. and Saharia, D. 1994. Linear model for predicting seed loss in green gram

Hussain, S. and Saharia, D. 1994. Linear model for predicting seed loss in green gram

Ingle, Y. V. Aherkar, S. K. Lande, G. K. Burgoni, E. B. and Autkar, S. S. 2004. Natural

Johnston, R.L. and Bishop, G.W. 1987. Economic injury levels and economic threshold for

Handbook of Agriculture 2006. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.

soybean defoliators by using simulated insect defoliation technique. *Journal of* 

due to pod feeders. *Journal of the Agricultural Science Society of North East India*,

due to pod feeders. *Journal of the Agricultural Science Society of North-East India,* 

epizootic of *Nomuraea rileyi* on lepidopterous pests of soybean and green gram.

cereal aphids on spring planted wheat. *Journal of Economic Entomology,* 80: 478-

(*Vigna radiata* L. Wilczek) to insect pests at Indore (M.P.). *Indian Agriculturist*, 42:

R.L.Rajak) Aditya Books Private Limited, New Delhi. pp 1-40.

*Control IV*, Berkeley, California, USA, 13-15 July, 2004. 53 - 54.

pests of greengram and blackgram. *Shashpa*, 10: 85-87.

Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, pp. 229-258.

gram. *Indian Agriculturist*, 38: 263-272.

Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, India.

*Economic Entomology,* 75: 102-107.

Wiley & Sons, Chichester, West Sussex, England.

*Journal of Applied Zoological Researches*, 15: 160-162.

system in Agriculture. Vol.4. Pulses (eds. R.K.Upadhyay, K.G. Mukerji and

*Lampides boeticus* L. in green gram. *Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences*, 22:

**4. References** 

XVIII+439+A 135 pp.

624-625.

261-266.

7: 98-99.

7: 98-99.

482.


**Section 6** 

**Agriculture and Human Health** 

