Creative Commons License 2022 Volume 9 Issue 4

Evaluation of Microbial Insecticides for the Management of Eggplant Shoot and Fruit Borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee


Mahi Imam Mollah, Nayem Hassan, Soyema Khatun
Abstract

Eggplant Shoot and Fruit Borer (ESFB), Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee, is an economically important pest in Bangladesh. Different toxic chemical insecticides are frequently applied in the field to control this notorious pest. In this study, we tested several non-toxic microbial insecticides for their efficacy against ESFB as well as marketable yield. Abamectin 1.2% + Emamectin benzoate 1%, Spinosad 45 SC and Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP significantly prevents shoot infestation compared to control. Fruit infestation was also reduced by Abamectin + Emamectin benzoate, Spinosad 45 SC, and Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP, in contrast, to control by both number and weight basis, respectively. Marketable yield increased exponentially upon Spinosad 45 SC and Abamectin 1.2% + Emamectin benzoate 1% application. Finally, gross yield also increased notably by Spinosad 45 SC application. From this study, we found that all the microbial insecticides especially Spinosad 45 SC and Abamectin 1.2% + Emamectin benzoate 1% found effective to reduce ESFB infestation both in the shoot and fruit. These also increase the marketable fruit yield by increasing the healthy fruit weight and decreasing the infested fruit weight individually.


How to cite this article
Vancouver
Mollah MI, Hassan N, Khatun S. Evaluation of Microbial Insecticides for the Management of Eggplant Shoot and Fruit Borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee. Entomol Appl Sci Lett. 2022;9(4):9-18. https://doi.org/10.51847/H7euMM1RAx
APA
Mollah, M. I., Hassan, N., & Khatun, S. (2022). Evaluation of Microbial Insecticides for the Management of Eggplant Shoot and Fruit Borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee. Entomology and Applied Science Letters, 9(4), 9-18. https://doi.org/10.51847/H7euMM1RAx
Downloads: 16
Views: 25

Evaluation of Microbial Insecticides for the Management of Eggplant Shoot and Fruit Borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee

 

Md. Mahi Imam Mollah1*, Nayem Hassan2, Soyema Khatun3

 

1Department of Entomology, Patuakhali Science and Technology University (PSTU), Dumki, Patuakhali-8602, Bangladesh.

2Research and Development Division, Russell IPM Ltd., Deeside Industrial Park Deeside, Flintshire, United Kingdom.

3Crop Physiology Division, Bangladesh Institute of Nuclear Agriculture (BINA), Mymensing-2022, Bangladesh.


ABSTRACT

Eggplant Shoot and Fruit Borer (ESFB), Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee, is an economically important pest in Bangladesh. Different toxic chemical insecticides are frequently applied in the field to control this notorious pest. In this study, we tested several non-toxic microbial insecticides for their efficacy against ESFB as well as marketable yield. Abamectin 1.2% + Emamectin benzoate 1%, Spinosad 45 SC and Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP significantly prevents shoot infestation compared to control. Fruit infestation was also reduced by Abamectin + Emamectin benzoate, Spinosad 45 SC, and Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP, in contrast, to control by both number and weight basis, respectively. Marketable yield increased exponentially upon Spinosad 45 SC and Abamectin 1.2% + Emamectin benzoate 1% application. Finally, gross yield also increased notably by Spinosad 45 SC application. From this study, we found that all the microbial insecticides especially Spinosad 45 SC and Abamectin 1.2% + Emamectin benzoate 1% found effective to reduce ESFB infestation both in the shoot and fruit. These also increase the marketable fruit yield by increasing the healthy fruit weight and decreasing the infested fruit weight individually.

Keywords: Leucinodes orbonalis, Microbial insecticides, Spinosad, Bacillus thuringiensis, Abamectin, Emamectin benzoate.


INTRODUCTION

 

Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.), also called aubergine or brinjal, is the fifth most economically important crop after potato, tomato, pepper, and tobacco from the Solanaceae family [1]. This species is mostly cultivated and popular in the Indian sub-continent [2], some parts of Africa, and Central America [3] with a hot-wet climate [4]. Two other less-known species; the scarlet eggplant (S. aethiopicum L.) and African eggplant (S. macrocarpon L.) are cultivated in sub-Saharan Africa with local importance [5]. The annual production of eggplant is close to 50 million tons globally, providing a net return of more than US$10 billion per year [6]. Nutritionally important eggplant has an increased content of vitamins, minerals, and bioactive compounds but a very reduced caloric value needed for sound human health [7, 8]. Phenolic compounds [9], particularly phenolic acid in the form of anthocyanins present in fruit skin [10] and chlorogenic acid of fruit flesh [11] increase the bioactive properties of eggplant. Both anthocyanins and phenolic acids have multiple beneficial properties for human health [12].

Longer fruiting and harvesting periods, higher yields, higher nutritional value, increased planting of eggplants [13-15]. In Bangladesh, Brinjal (Solanum melongena L.) is cultivated in 50,955 hectares of area with a total production of 507,000 metric tons [16] making it the second most important vegetable crop. However, eggplant production is severely affected by the increased cost of production on the management of different insect pests attacking from the seedling to the fruiting stage [17]. Eggplant is frequently attacked by various insect pests including mites, whiteflies, aphids, eggplant shoot and fruit borers, leafhoppers, thrips, spotted beetles, leaf roller, stem borers, and blister beetle [17]. Among them, eggplant shoot and fruit borer (ESFB), Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee is the key pest of eggplant [18, 19] inflicting considerable damage in almost all the growing areas [20], especially in south Asia [21]. Prevention of ESFB is difficult as larvae live within the bored holes blockading it with frass which defends them from most topically applied insecticides and natural enemies [22]. Because of internal feeding, the fruits miss the content of vitamin C up to 80% [23], market value, and yield up to 90% [24]. Frequent use of synthetic insecticides to manage this pest leads to toxic consumption, destabilization of the ecosystem, increased insect resistance [25], and mortality of biological control agents including ladybird beetle [26] and stink bug [27]. Microbial insecticides have the potential to be a safe alternative to synthetic insecticides in eggplant fields [28] with the least hazardous impact. The potency of microbial insecticides may be because of their immune suppressive activity [29, 30], Toxemia [31], or cell death by apoptosis [32]. Therefore, this literature is aimed at evaluating the field efficacy of microbial insecticides as alternatives to synthetic insecticides against the shoot and fruit borer of eggplant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Location and soil type

The experiment was carried out at Gazipur, Bangladesh with the brinjal variety ‘Singnath’ during the Kharif season to evaluate the efficacy of microbial insecticides against eggplant shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis L.) as well as their impact on yield potentiality. The study area is situated at 24.09 N latitude and 90.26 E longitude with an elevation of 8.4 meters from the sea level. The area represents the Agro-Ecological Zone of the Madhupur tract (AEZ-28) with pH 5.8-6.5, CEC 25.58, and the soil was silty clay loam in texture [33].

Experimental design and treatments

The experiment was designed following a randomized complete block design with 3 replications. The plot size was 10.0 x 2.0 m with a spacing of 0.7 x 0.7 m between rows and plants, respectively. Each plot contains two rows with 13 plants in a row. The intercultural operations and fertilizations were conducted whenever necessary as previously [25]. The applied treatments were: Spinosad 45 SC @ 0.2 mL/L water (T1), Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP @ 1.5 g/L water (T2), Carbosulfan 20 EC @ 3 mL/L water (T3), Abamectin 1.2% + Emamectin benzoate 1% @ 2.0 mL/L water (T4) and only water (T5). The synthetic insecticide was purchased from a local market and the microbial were provided by Russell IPM, UK, the details are given in Table 1. Water was directly added to all spray mixtures of insecticides to get desired concentration and for convenient foliar spray. Spraying was carried out using a knapsack sprayer, with 500 to 750 liters of insecticide applied per hectare, depending on the growth stage of the plants. Spraying began at the vegetative stage and continued at 7-day intervals until final harvest.

 

Table 1. List of insecticides used in this study with their Information

Trade name

Common name

Trading Company

Dose

Tracer 45 SC

Spinosad 45 SC

Auto Crop Care Ltd.

0.2 mL/L

Antario 32 KAB

Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP

Russell IPM, UK

1.5 g/L

Marshal 20 EC

Carbosulfan 20 EC

Auto Crop Care Ltd.

3 mL/L

Biotin M

Abamectin 1.2% + Emamectin benzoate 1%

Russell IPM, UK

2.5 mL/L

 

 

Data collection and annotation

The quantity of infested and healthy shoots in every plot was documented on every 3rd day from all the plants and the percentage of shoot infestation was worked out. Fruits were picked every 5 days from all plants in all plots, and diseased fruits and healthy fruits were separated. The total quantity and weight of healthy and infested fruits were documented distinctively for every plot at each picking and the percent fruit damage was worked out. The total yield was calculated by summing the yield of infested and healthy fruits from all the harvests. Finally, the yield was converted to tons per hectare. Individual fruit weight also was calculated. Shoot infestation was recorded 8 times and fruit infestation was recorded 8 times. The percent shoot and fruit damage were worked out using the following formulae:

 

 

Percent (%) shoot/fruit infestation =Number of infested shoot/fruitsTotal number of shoot/fruits×100

(1)

Percent (%) increase/reduction over control=Mean value of the control – Mean value of the treatmentMean value of the control×100

(2)

 

 

Statistical analysis of data

The data which were gathered were arranged and calculated using Microsoft Accel. All the data for continuous variables were exposed to a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) by the use of PROG GLM in the SAS program [34]. Means were associated with the minimum significant difference (LSD) test at 0.05 level of Type I error. Data was represented as a graph using Sigma Plot 12.5 software. Each treatment was replicated three times with 8 consecutive observations. Different letters above the error bar denote significant differences (p >0.05, LSD Test) among the treatments.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

 

Effect of microbial insecticides on shoot formation and infestation

Eggplant shoot and fruit borer attack the shoot at the vegetative a wither and dried later. Four insecticides were a s well as reproductive stage causing the shoot ssessed for their effectiveness against shoot infestation by eggplant shoot and fruit borer (Figure 1). All the insecticides reduce the number of infested shoots significantly (p <0.05) and effectively but Abamectin 1.2% + Emamectin benzoate 1% and Spinosad 45 SC were found most effective compared to the control (Figure 1a). These insecticides also have a role in the total number of healthy shoot production where Carbosulfan 20 EC and Spinosad 45 SC was most potent (Figure 1b). Therefore, the shoot infestation rate was affected by insecticides. The lowest shoot infestation rate was achieved from Abamectin 1.2% + Emamectin benzoate 1% and Spinosad 45 SC while the maximum was from Carbosulfan 20 EC after control (Figure 1c). In comparison to the control, shoot infestation reduction by Abamectin 1.2% + Emamectin benzoate 1% and Spinosad 45 SC was 75.76% and 71.43% respectively. Thus, Abamectin 1.2% + Emamectin benzoate 1% and Spinosad 45 SC were found effective for controlling the shoot infestation.

 

a)

b)

c)

Figure 1. Effect of insecticide on shoot infestation caused by eggplant shoot and fruit borer. a) Number of infested shoots per plot. b) Number of healthy shoots per plot. c) Percent shoot infestation reduction by insecticides.

 

Effect of insecticides on fruit infestation

Eggplant shoots and fruit borers feed on the internal fleshy part of the fruit and cause significant damage. The microbial insecticides have a significant (p <0.05) role in reducing fruit infestation (Figure 2). Extend of infested fruit number varies based on insecticides (Figure 2a). Among the insecticides, Abamectin 1.2 % + Emamectin benzoate 1% as well as Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP was found potent than Carbosulfan 20 EC and Spinosad 45 SC. Insecticides also contribute to healthy fruit production (Figure 2b). Spinosad 45 SC and Abamectin 1.2 % + Emamectin benzoate 1% produce more healthy fruit than Carbosulfan 20 EC and Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP. Finally, microbial insecticides controlled the rate of fruit infestation (Figure 2c). Abamectin 1.2 % + Emamectin benzoate 1% and Spinosad 45 SC confirmed less fruit infestation rate than Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP and Carbosulfun 20 EC compared to control. The performance of insecticides in reducing fruit damage can be explained by the percentage reduction in fruit damage relative to controls. In this context, Abamectin 1.2 % + Emamectin benzoate 1% (70.88% reduction over control) was best followed by Spinosad 45 SC (66.39% reduction over control), Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP (63.69% reduction over control) and Carbosulfun 20 EC (46.09% reduction over control).

 

a)

b)

c)

Figure 2. Effect of microbial insecticide on fruit infestation (number basis) caused by eggplant shoot and fruit borer. a) Number of infested fruits per plot. b) Number of healthy fruits per plot. c) Percent fruit infestation (number basis).

 

Likewise, microbial insecticides have a significant (p <0.05) effect on controlling fruit infestation on a weight basis (Figure 3). Among the treatments, less amount of infested fruit was recorded from Abamectin 1.2 % + Emamectin benzoate 1% and Spinosad 45 SC than Carbosulfan 20 EC and Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP after control (Figure 3a). In contrast, more amount of healthy fruit was collected from Spinosad 45 SC and Abamectin 1.2 % + Emamectin benzoate 1% than Carbosulfan 20 EC and Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP (Figure 3b). Therefore, the lowest percent fruit infestation by weight was recorded from Abamectin 1.2 % + Emamectin benzoate 1% which was followed by Spinosad 45 SC, Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP and Carbosulfun 20 EC while the maximum of that was from control (43.24%) (Figure 3c). The performance of the insecticides for fruit infestation reduction can be clarified by the percent reduction of fruit infestation over control. In this context, Abamectin 1.2 % + Emamectin benzoate 1% (77.41% reduction over control) was best followed by Spinosad 45 SC (73.68% reduction over control), Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP (63.62% reduction over control) and Carbosulfun 20 EC (34.07% reduction over control). The above results thus revealed that the microbial origin Abamectin 1.2 % + Emamectin benzoate 1% and Spinosad 45 SC are most effective for controlling eggplant shoot and fruit borer.

 

a)

b)

c)

Figure 3. Effect of insecticide on fruit infestation (weight basis) caused by eggplant shoot and fruit borer. a) Number of infested fruits per plot. b) Number of healthy fruits per plot. c) Percent fruit infestation (weight basis).

Effect of insecticides on fruit yield

The yield of eggplant is dependent on management practices of eggplant shoot and fruit borer infestation. The managed microbial insecticides effectively control the ESFB infestation and increase the yield significantly (p <0.05) (Figure 4). Infested fruit yield was less in Abamectin 1.2 % + Emamectin benzoate 1% and Spinosad 45 SC than Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP and Carbosulfan 20 EC after control (Figure 4a). The most crucial healthy fruit yield or marketable fruit yield also significantly (p <0.05) increased by microbial insecticide application (Figure 4b). Maximum marketable yield was confirmed by Spinosad 45 SC which was followed by Abamectin 1.2 % + Emamectin benzoate 1%, Carbosulfan 20 EC, and Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP whereas the lowest was harvested from control. Therefore, the gross yield was also controlled by insecticides (Figure 4c). Constantly, the maximum gross yield was collected from Spinosad 45 SC which is statistically similar to Carbosulfan 20 EC while the lowest of that was found in Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP that is statistically similar and close to control and Abamectin 1.2 % + Emamectin benzoate 1%. The rate of change in yield over control was evaluated and shown in Figure 4d to observe the yield performance of the treated insecticides. For marketable yield, the surge in yield over control was maximum by Spinosad 45 SC (90.00%) which is followed by Abamectin 1.2 % + Emamectin benzoate 1% (60.68%), Carbosulfun 20 EC (41.78%) and Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP (39.32%). But little change was observed for gross yields like a 21.71% increase by Spinosad 45 SC, 12.61% increase by Carbosulfun 20 EC, 1.25% increase by Abamectin 1.2 % + Emamectin benzoate 1%, and 6.18% decrease by Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP. The above discussion thus revealed that Spinosad 45 SC and Abamectin 1.2 % + Emamectin benzoate 1% are highly effective to increase marketable fruit yield by controlling ESFB infestation.

 

a)

b)

c)

d)

Figure 4. Effect of insecticide on fruit yield by controlling eggplant shoot and fruit borer. a) Infested fruit yield. b) Marketable fruit yield. c) Gross yield. d) Yield change over control.

 

Effect of insecticides on individual fruit weight

Eggplant shoot and fruit borer larvae bore into the tender fruit and feed the internal fleshy part of the fruit. Due to infestation, feeding internal part as well as the growth and improvement of fruit is slight retarded which leads reduction of weight. Insecticides stops weight loss significantly (p <0.05) in a differential manner (Figure 5). From the treated insecticides, Carbosulfan 20 EC and Spinosad 45 SC confirm gain of individual healthy fruit weight than control which is 4.03% and 3.75% of weight gain over control. On the other hand, weight loss was observed for Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP and Abamectin 1.2% + Emamectin benzoate 1% which was 4.59% and 5.11% over control (Figure 5a). In case of infested fruit, Carbosulfan 20 EC and Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP confirms gain of individual fruit weight than control which is 3.29% and 0.62% of weight gain over control. On the other hand, weight loss was observed for Spinosad 45 SC and Abamectin 1.2% + Emamectin benzoate 1% which was 17.47% and 24.68% over control (Figure 5b). However, the difference between the healthy and infested fruit weight was recorded as Spinosad 45 SC (28.93 g), Abamectin 1.2% + Emamectin benzoate 1% (26.58 g), and Carbosulfun 20 EC (13.50 g) are more than control (12.44 g) while Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP (7.93 g) provided lower than the control (Figure 5c). The results thus revealed that Spinosad 45 SC and Abamectin 1.2% + Emamectin benzoate 1% found potential to ensure more marketable yield.

a)

b)

c)

Figure 5. Effect of insecticide on individual fruit weight. a) Individual healthy fruit weight. b) Individual Infested fruit weight. c) Differences between healthy and infested fruit weight.

 

The microbial insecticides are promising against major insect pests in eggplant which in turn increased the yield. In the present study, we observed that all the insecticides viz. Spinosad 45 SG, Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki 5% WP, Carbosulfan 20 EC, Abamectin 1.2% + Emamectin benzoate 1% was effective for managing the shoot and fruit infestation by eggplant shoot and fruit borer larvae in comparison to control. Among these insecticides, Abamectin 1.2% + Emamectin benzoate 1%, Spinosad 45 SG, and Bacillus thuringiensis var Kurstaki were found most effective. The present findings are in accordance with [35] who found Spinosad 45 SC and Emamectin benzoate 5 SG as most effective against shoot damage providing 88.22% and 84.41% control, respectively. [36] described that the application of Emamectin benzoate 25 WG @ 0.4 g/L and Spinosad 45 SC @ 0.5 ml/L recorded the lowest fruit damage of 6.95 and 8.06 percent, respectively. [37] reported that spraying of Bt emulsion against shoot and fruit borer resulted in 78.8-100% control over the untreated check. Emamectin Benzoate 5 EC @ 15 g a.i./ha and Spinosad 45 SC @ 75 g a.i./ha were found effective in reducing the infestation of fruit borer [38]. [39] concluded that B. thuringiensis (Bt) formulations, Dipel 8L @ 0.2 per cent at 10 days interval resulted in the minimum shoot (9.56%) as well as fruit (11.78%) infestation.

From these insecticides, microbial origin Spinosad and Abamectin + Emamectin benzoate produce maximum healthy fruits providing the highest marketable fruit yield. The present finding is supported by the finding of [36] where Emamectin benzoate 25 WG @ 0.4 g/L and Spinosad 45 SC @ 0.5 ml/L produce the highest yield of 351.46 qt/ha and 341.75 q/ha, respectively. [38] also reported that Emamectin Benzoate 5 EC and Spinosad 45 SC produce the highest marketable fruit yield. Dipel 8L @ 0.2 per cent produces the maximum yield of marketable fruits (196.96 q/ha) [39]. All the microbial insecticides were found effective to kill ESFB larvae compared to Carbosulfan 20 EC. The reason may be the various function of microbial insecticides: immune suppression, toxicity or toxemia, and apoptosis [30-32]. Entomopathogenic bacteria release immune suppressor PLA2 inhibitors that decrease the immunity of insects [29, 30]. Some microbial metabolites also have binding affinity to insect immune protein, dorsal switch protein 1 [40, 41]. In a lepidopteran insect, Spodoptera exigua, bacterial metabolites bind with dorsal switch protein 1 to interrupt the immune activation [41]. Dorsal switch protein 1 (DSP1) also has an immune role in a Coleopteran insect, Tenebrio molitor [42]. Therefore, further study is needed to know the mode of action of these microbial insecticides that kill the L. orbonalis larvae though we already know that Bacillus thuringiensis mode of action.

CONCLUSION

Several non-toxic microbial insecticides were tested against Eggplant Shoot and Fruit Borer (ESFB), Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee, for their efficacy to control ESFB as well as yield potentiality. All the microbial insecticides were found effective to reduce ESFB infestation both in the shoot and fruit. In context to control, Abamectin 1.2% + Emamectin benzoate 1% and Spinosad 45 SC found most potent. These also increase marketable fruit yield.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: We are grateful to Russell IPM Limited for providing the microbial insecticides. Our sincere thanks to all other helping hands who cooperate to conduct this study.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None

FINANCIAL SUPPORT: None

ETHICS STATEMENT: All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. This article does not contain any studies on human participants performed by any of the authors.


References

1.       Taher D, Solberg SØ, Prohens J, Chou Y, Rakha M, Wu T. World Vegetable Center Eggplant Collection: Origin, Composition, Seed Dissemination and Utilization in Breeding. Front Plant Sci. 2017:1484. doi:10.3389/fpls.2017.01484

2.       Abhishek TS, Dwivedi SA. Review on integrated management of brinjal shoots and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis (Guenee). J Entomol Zool Stud. 2021;9(1):181-9. doi:10.22271/j.ento.2021.v9.i1c.8143

3.       Harish DK, Agasimani AK, Imamsaheb SJ, Patil SS. Growth and yield parameters in brinjal as influenced by organic nutrient management and plant protection conditions. Res J Agric Sci. 2011;2(2):221-5.

4.       Hanson PM, Yang RY, Tsou SCS, Ledesma D, Engle L, Lee TC. Diversity of eggplant (Solanum melongena) for superoxide scavenging activity, total phenolics, and ascorbic acid. J Food Compost Anal. 2006;19(6-7):594-600. doi:10.1016/j.jfca.2006.03.001

5.       Luoh JW, Begg CB, Symonds RC, Ledesma D, Yang RY. Nutritional Yield of African Indigenous Vegetables in Water-Deficient and Water-Sufficient Conditions. Food Nutr Sci.2014;5(9):812-22. doi:10.4236/fns.2014.59091

6.       FAO. FAOSTAT Production Databases. 2014; Available online at: http://www.faostat.fao.org (Accessed January 30, 2017).

7.       Raigón MD, Prohens J, Muñoz-Falcón JE, Nuez F. Comparison of eggplant landraces and commercial varieties for fruit content of phenolics, minerals, dry matter, and protein. J Food Compost Anal. 2008;21(5):370-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jfca.2008.03.006

8.       Docimo T, Francese G, Ruggiero A, Batelli G, De Palma M, Bassolino L, et al. Phenylpropanoids accumulation in eggplant fruit: characterization of biosynthetic genes and regulation by a MYB transcription factor. Front Plant Sci. 2016; 6:1233. doi:10.3389/fpls.2015.01233

9.       Plazas M, Andújar I, Vilanova S, Hurtado M, Gramazio P, Herraiz FJ, et al. Breeding for chlorogenic acid content in eggplant: interest and prospects. Not Bot Horti Agrobot Cluj Napoca. 2013;41(1):26-35. doi:10.15835/nbha4119036

10.   Mennella G, Scalzo RL, Fibiani M, D'Alessandro A, Francese G, Toppino L, et al. Chemical and bioactive quality traits during fruit ripening in eggplant (S. melongena L.) and allied species. J Agric Food Chem. 2012;60(47):11821-31. doi:10.1021/jf3037424

11.   Stommel JR, Whitaker BD, Haynes KG, Prohens J. Genotype × environment interactions in eggplant for fruit phenolic acid content. Euphytica. 2015;205(3):823-36. doi:10. 1007/s106 81-015-1415-2

12.   Braga PC, Lo Scalzo R, dal Sasso M, Lattuada N, Greco V, Fibiani M. Characterization and antioxidant activity of semi-purified extracts and pure delphinine-glycosides from eggplant peel (Solanum melongena L.) and allied species. J Funct Foods. 2016; 20:411-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jff.2015.10.032

13.   Hemdan DII, Abdulmaguid NYM. A Comparative of Nutritional Impacts of Pomegranate and Beetroot on Female Mice Bearing Ehrlich Ascites Carcinoma. Arch Pharm Pract. 2021;12(3):48-54. doi:10.51847/SXV0CJYqDc

14.   Gull M, Kausar A. Screening the Variability in Salt Tolerance of Sorghum Bicolor L. by Nutrients Uptake and Growth Analysis of Four Genotypes. Pharmacophore. 2019;10(2):43-50.

15.   Kondratenko EP, Soboleva OM, Berezina AS, Miroshina TA, Raushkina D, Raushkin N. Influence of Sowing Time on Chemical Composition and Nutritional Value of Annual Herbs in Mixed Crops. J Biochem Technol. 2021;12(4):6-11.

16.   Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). Bangladesh Agricultural Statistics Yearbook. People’s republic of Bangladesh. 2018. Available from: https://databd.co/resources/ agricultural-statistics-yearbook.

17.   Latif MA, Rahman MM, Alam MZ. Efficacy of nine insecticides against shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in eggplant. J Pest Sci. 2010;83(4):391-7.

18.   Chakraborty S, Sarkar PK. Management of Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee on eggplant during the rainy season in India. J Plant Prot Res.2011;51(4):325-8. doi:10.2478/v10045-011-0053-5

19.   Saimandir J, Gopal M. Evaluation of synthetic and natural insecticides for management of insect pest control of eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) and Pesticide Residue Dissipation Pattern. Am J Plant Sci. 2012;3(2):214-27. doi:10.4236/ajps.2012.32026

20.   Dutta P, Singha AK, Das P, Kalita S. Management of brinjal fruit and shoot borer, Leucinodes orbanalis Guenee in agro-ecological condition of West Tripura. Sch J Agric Sci. 2011;1(2):16-9. Available from: http:// www.scholarly-journals.com/SJAS

21.   Gautam M, Kafle S, Regmi B, Thapa G, Paudel S. Management of Brinjal Fruit and Shoot Borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) in Nepal. Acta Sci Agric. 2019;3(9):188-95. doi:10.31080/ASAG.2019.03.0632

22.   Cork A, Alarm SN, Das A, Ghosh CS, Farman GC, Hall DI, et al. Female sex pheromone of brinjal fruit and shoot borer, Leucinodes orbonalis blend optimization. J Chem Ecol. 2001;27(9):1867-77. doi:10.1023/A:1010416927282

23.   Sharma DR. Bio-efficacy of certain insecticides and biopesticides against major pest of brinjal under field condition. M. Sc. Thesis, Indian Agriculture Research Institute, New Delhi, India. 2002; 160 p.

24.   Baral K, Roy BC, Rahim KMB, Chatterjee H, Mondal P, Mondal D, et al. Socio-economic parameters of pesticide use and assessment of impact of an IPM strategy for the control of eggplant fruit and shoot borer in West Bengal, India. Technical Bulletin No. 37. AVRDC publication number 06-673. AVRDC-The World Vegetable Center, Shanhua, Taiwan. 2006; 36 p.

25.   Dittrich V, Ernst GH, Ruesch O, Uk S. Resistance mechanisms in sweet potato whitefly (Homoptera, Aleyrodidae) population from Sudan, Turkey, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. J Econ Entomol. 1990;83(5):1665-70. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jee/article/83/5/1665/2215473.

26.   Mollah MMI, Rahman MM, Alam MZ. Toxic effect of some insecticides on predatory ladybird beetle (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in country bean (Lablab purpureus Lin.) field. World J Zool. 2012;7(4):347-50. doi:10.5829/idosi.wjz.2012.7.4.7117

27.   Mollah MMI, Rahman MM, Khatun S, Mala M, Akon MR. Toxicity of Botanical and Chemical insecticides on Stink bug complex (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) in Lablab bean (Lablab purpureus Lin) field. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2017;5(2):537-41.

28.   Mollah MMI, Hassan N, Khatun S, Rahman MM. Sequential application of bio-pesticides suppresses eggplant shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee infestation. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2022;10(5):140-6. doi:10.22271/j.ento.2022.v10.i5b.9054

29.   Mollah MMI, Dekebo A, Kim Y. Immunosuppressive Activities of Novel PLA2 Inhibitors from Xenorhabdus hominickii, an Entomopathogenic Bacterium. Insects. 2020;11(8):505. doi:10.3390/insects11080505

30.   Mollah MMI, Kim Y. Virulent secondary metabolites of entomopathogenic bacteria genera, Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus, inhibit phospholipase A2 to suppress host insect immunity. BMC Microbiol. 2020b;20(1):359. doi:10.1186/s12866-020-02042-9

31.   Tobias NJ, Wolff H, Djahanschiri B, Grundmann F, Kronenwerth M, Shi YM, et al. Natural product diversity associated with the nematode symbionts Photorhabdus and Xenorhabdus. Nat Microbiol. 2017;2(12):1676-85.

32.   Mollah MMI, Yeasmin F, Kim Y. Benzylideneacetone and other phenylethylamide bacterial metabolites induce apoptosis to kill insects. J Asia-Pacific Entomol. 2020;23(2):449-57. doi:10.1016/j.aspen.2020.03.008

33.   Mollah MMI, Rahman MM, Alam MZ, Hossain MM. Yield Performance of Heat Tolerant Country Bean (Lablab Purpureus Lin.) as Influenced by Insecticides During Kharif Season. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2013;1(3):1-6.

34.   SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT User’s Guide; SAS Institute: Cary, NC, USA, 1989.

35.   Awal A, Rahman MM, Alam MZ, Khan MMH. Management of brinjal shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis (Lepidoptera: crambidae) using some selected insecticides in field conditions, Bangladesh. Jahangirnagar Univ J Biol Sci. 2017;6(1):35-43.

36.   Mane PD, Kumar R. Bio-efficacy of new chemicals against shoot and fruit borer of brinjal. Int J Sci Environ Technol. 2019;8(6):1220-4.

37.   Yin RG. Bionomics of Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. and its control. Entomol Knowl. 1993;30(2):91-2.

38.   Singh K, Raju S, Sharma KR. Field efficacy of novel insecticides emamectin benzoate and Spinosad against fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) on tomato. J Entomol Res. 2022;46(1):106-10. doi:10.5958/0974-4576.2022.00018.4

39.   Puranik TR, Hadapad AR, Salunke GN, Pokharkar DS. Management of shoot and fruit borer Leucinodes orbonalis through Bacillus thuiringiensis formulations on brinjal. J Entomol Res. 2002;26(3):229-32.

40.   Mollah MMI, Ahmed S, Kim Y. Immune mediation of HMG-like DSP1 via Toll-Spatzle pathway and its specific inhibition by salicylic acid analogs. PLoS Pathog. 2021a;17(3):e1009467. doi:10.1371/journal. ppat.1009467

41.   Mollah MMI, Choi HW, Yeam I, Lee JM, Kim Y. Salicylic Acid, a Plant Hormone, Suppresses Phytophagous Insect Immune Response by Interrupting HMG-Like DSP1. Front Physiol. 2021b; 12:744272. doi:10.3389/fphys.2021.744. 272

42.   Mollah MMI, Kim Y. HMGB1‐like dorsal switch protein 1 of the mealworm, Tenebrio molitor, acts as a damage‐associated molecular pattern. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol. 2021;107(3):e21795. doi:10.1002/arch.21795


Entomology and Applied Science Letters is an international peer reviewed publication which publishes scientific research & review articles related to insects that contain information of interest to a wider audience, e.g. papers bearing on the theoretical, genetic, agricultural, medical and biodiversity issues. Emphasis is also placed on the selection of comprehensive, revisionary or integrated systematics studies of broader biological or zoogeographical relevance. Papers on non-insect groups are no longer accepted. In addition to full-length research articles and reviews, the journal publishes interpretive articles in a Forum section, Short Communications, and Letters to the Editor. The journal publishes reports on all phases of medical entomology and medical acarology, including the systematics and biology of insects, acarines, and other arthropods of public health and veterinary significance.
Issue 1 Volume 10 - 2023
Call for Papers
Entomology and Applied Science Letters supports the submission of entomological papers that contain information of interest to a wider reader groups e. g. papers bearing on taxonomy, phylogeny, biodiversity, ecology, systematic, agriculture, morphology. The selection of comprehensive, revisionary or integrated systematics studies of broader biological or zoogeographical relevance is also important. Distinguished entomologists drawn from different parts of the world serve as honorary members of the Editorial Board. The journal encompasses all the varied aspects of entomological research. This has become the need felt in scientific research due to the emphasis on intra-, inter-, and multi-disciplinary approach.