The effects of some insecticides on cotton pests and theirs predators

(1)

T. C.

DICLE UNIVERSITY

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATUREL AND APPLIED SCIENCE

THE EFFECTS OF SOME INSECTICIDES ON COTTON PESTS AND THEIRS PREDATORS

Hasan YAHYA AL-MIZORI

MASTER THESIS

PLANT PROTECTION DEPARTMENT

DIYARBAKIR

(2)

T. C.

DĠCLE ÜNĠVERSĠTESĠ

FEN BĠLĠMLERĠ ENSTĠTÜSÜ MÜDÜRLÜĞÜ DĠYARBAKIR

HasanYAHYA AL-MIZORI tarafından yapılan “The effects of some insecticides on cotton pests and theirs predators” konulu bu çalıĢma, jürimiz tarafından Bitki Koruma Anabilim Dalında Yuksek Lisans tezi olarak kabul edilmiĢtir.

Jüri Üyeleri

BaĢkan : Prof. Dr. Erol BAYHAN (DanıĢman) Üye : Doç. Dr. Ġzzet AKÇA

Üye : Doç. Dr. Ramazan ÇETĠNTAġ

Tez Savunma Sınavı Tarihi: 25 / 12 / 2015

Yukarıdaki bilgilerin doğruluğunu onaylarım. .../.../2015

Doç. Dr. Mehmet YILDIRIM Enstitü Müdürü

(3)

I

Praised Allah, the one and only, who gave me strength and patient to accomplish my study successfully.

First of all, I appreciate and express my sincere thanks to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Erol BAYHAN, who have been with me in every step during my study and gave me hand whenever I needed.

Special thanks to Staff of Agricultural Faculty, Dicle University for for supporting during any problem of my study.

My thanks and appreciation goes to both friends Mr. Omer Safar and Mr. Salim who been with me and helped me during field work and data collecting.

Thanks for everyone who was not mention in here for helping. Great thanks for my best friend and life-long companion Mr. Omer Safar, who stand with me during this journey. Finally I must express my deepest and warmest thanks to my family and specially my parents for their patience and encouragement and given what I needed during my study.

(4)

II ACKNOWLEDGMENT………..……….I CONTENT……….………..II OZET………..III ABSTRACT………...………IV LIST OF TABLES……….………..V LIST OF FIGURES………...……….VI 1. INTRODUCTION……….………..1 2. REVIEW OF LITRATURE……….………4 2.1 Biopesticide Azadirachtin………...………..………..4

2.1.1 Effects of Azadirachtin on Pests……….……….………4

2.1.2 Effects on Azadirachtin on Predators……...………..………8

2.1.3 Indirect effects of Azadirachtin on Predators……...……….………9

2.2 Chemical Pesticides……….……….…………10

2.2.1 Effects of Chemical Pesticide on Pests……….………...……….………….10

2.2.3 Effects on Chemical Pesticides on Predators………...………….……….12

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS………..……….15

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………21

5. CONCLUSION………...…………...36

(5)

III Özet

Pamuktaki zararlı böcekler (Beyazsinek, Yaprakbiti, YeĢilkurt, Yaprakpiresi ve Thrips) ve bunların önemli predatörler (Orius spp., Coccinellid ve Chrysopid)’e tarla koĢullarında, Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid ve Lambda-cyhalothrin uygulanmıĢtır. Uygulama sonrası 1., 3., 7., 11. ve 15. günden sonra her bir insektisitin zararlı böcekler üzerine etkisi olduğu tespit edilmiĢtir. AraĢtırmada ele alınan pamuk zararlıların popülasyonu üzerine Lambda-cyhalothrin’in,Imidaclorpid ve Azadirachtin’den daha etkili olduğu tespit edilmiĢtir. Uygulanan insektisitlerden Predatörler üzerine Azadirachtin ve Imidaclorpid hiç bir etki göstermemiĢ olup, Lambda-cyhalothrin ise uygulamadan 1 gün sonra Orius spp. popülasyonu üzerine az bir etki göstermiĢtir.

(6)

IV ABSTRACT

Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin were applied against pests on cotton (Whitefly, Aphid, Bollworm, Jassid and Thrips) as well as their important predators (Orius spp, Coccinellid and Chrysopid), each one of insecticides found to be highly toxic against sap sucking pests 1d, 3d, 7d, 11d and 15d after application, while all the product remaind effective 15d after spray. Lambda-cyhalothrin known to had more significant effects in the reduction of pest populations followed by Imidaclorpid and Azadirachtin. In case of the predators, Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid showed no significant effect in the reduction of population of predators. Only Lambda-cyhalothrin showed a slight effect in the reduction of Orius population 1d after application.

(7)

V

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 the insecticides used during this study………...…….19 Table 2 effect of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on the infestation of whitefly on cotton………..22 Table 3 effect of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on infestation of Aphid on cotton……….……….24 Table 4 effect of Azadirachtim, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on infestation of Bollworm on cotton……….………..26 Table 5 effect o fAzadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on jassid infestation on cotton………..………28 Table 6 effect of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on thrips infestation on cotton………..………30 Table 7 effect of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on Chrysopid population on cotton……….………31 Table 8 effect of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on Coccinellid population on cotton………..………32 Table 9 effect of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on Orius spp. population on cotton………..………33

(8)

VI

Figure 1. Shows field designing……….…………15

Figure 2. Shows the design of field……….….…….16

Figure 3. Shows the application of insecticides on cotton field………...……….…17

(9)

1 1. INRODUCTION

Cotton is considered one of the main cash crops in the world. Cotton is recently considered a head of fiber crop around the world due to its daily uses and its trade between countries and is grown in more than 50 countries of temperate and sub-tropical regions. Cotton is planted worldwide with China is being the leader in production with (1.265 kg/ha), followed by USA (985 kg/ha), Uzbekistan (831 kg/ha), Pakistan (599 kg/ha) and India (560 kg/ha) (Khadi, 2010).

Turkey is one of the main countries for cotton cultivation and production in Mediterranean region as well as in the world. Cotton is the main source of income for many families and farmers in Turkey. Thus cotton considered an very important economic crop in the country (Özkan, 2004). Turkey is ranked in sixth place for cotton cultivation area in the world (Özkan, 2004). Cotton production in Turkey is about 882.000 tons from 760.000 ha. growing area. Aegean is taking the first place for producing cotton in Turkey which estimates 38 % of the total cotton production in the country (Anon, 2004).

Cotton sustains many problems in plant protection including pests, disease and weeds. Pests are the major factor limiting and decreasing cotton yield by30% arthropods by 12% pathogens by 11 % and weeds by 7 % (Oerke and Dehne, 2004). One of the most important point causing yield lose is the infestation insects, resulting 15-20 % decrease in cotton yield (Zahidullah, 1992).

In general, cotton is a susceptible crop to insects, can infested by up to 96 insect and mite (Yunus, 1980). Among that insects which infest cotton crop are Whitefly, Jassid, Thrips, Aphids and bollworms. They cause greatest economic losses in both quality and quantity of cotton in growing areas. Cotton aphid (Aphis gossypii Glover) is one of the most popular and dangerous pest on cotton. The feeding of this pest on cotton could cause a great reduction of yield, as well as honey dew secretion contaminating plant and resulting growing many kind of fungi. This pest also is a good vector of plant parasitic viruses causing epidemic diseases (Heneberry et al, 2001). Jassid (Amrasca bigutulla bigutulla

(10)

2

Ishida) is also considered one of the destructive pests in cotton, Both nymph and adult of this pest can cause serious damage by using toxic saliva during the feeding (Borah, 1995; Patel and Patel, 1998; Rafique and Shan, 1998 and Sudhakar, 1998). Thrips (Thrips tabaci Lindeman) is an important pest on cotton crop where both nymph and adults feed on sap of cotton and causing greater damage on the crop (Ali et al, 1993; Gupta, 1997 and Khan, 2008).Also some polyphagous mites known to be a pest on cotton and attack several crop worldwide (Flechtmann, 1989). Whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) is known to be the dangerous pest on cotton because of their resistance against much kind of insecticides and their high reproduction rate (Anonymous, 2012).

For these issues, cotton considered to be one of the most important crops that is using more insecticides compared with other crops, which making it one of the most chemical intensive crop in the world (Anonymous, 1986). There are many synthetic insecticides used for these pests, including Imidacloprid, Lambda-cyhalothrin, etc., using an extensive and accretive amount of synthetic pesticides in cotton is becoming the first option for farmers in many advanced countries (Islam et al. 2012). Several studies indicated that pest resistance, side effects on non- target insects and the risks on human health caused a significant decrease in using these chemicals and instead plant derivatives were taken place and started being used recently (Khattak et al, 2006).

In this study, we put eyes on using of pesticide derived from plant, Neem (Azadirachta indica Jussieu) which has no side effect on non-target insects in controlling pests. Neem tree is considered a huge tree with 25 m in height, with extend large crown. A tree can be productive for up to 10 years giving an average of 50 kg of fruits per year (Kumar and Gupla, 2002). Two main species have been recorded namely Azadirachta indica A. Juss and Azadirachta excels Kack. Azadirachta indica is known native to India, and other some species is known restricted to Philippines and Indonesia (Jattan, 1995; Hegde, 1992). Azadirachta indica is being used in many areas, including pest management, environmental protection and medicine, as well as producing natural insecticides (Brahmachari, 2004). For hundreds of years this plants leaves, seeds and oil is being used against many pests as a biopesticide and have a proper control by farmer as a

(11)

3

management tactic (Khalil, 2013). Neem can be found in markets with different formulations (Gahukar, 1996). The plant has effects on different mechanisms on insects including metamorphosis, adult fertility, growth regulation, toxicity, behavior and oviposition (Schmutterer, 1990). Ascher (1993) also reported that Azadirachtin was considered one of the most important compounds from neem extracted from its seeds, and found to have a severe impacts on behavior and development of pests as used (Ascher, 1993). The neem seeds contain about 45% of constant oil which give brownish-yellow color. These seeds are comprised of various acids such as oleic acid (50-60 %), palmitic acid (15-19 %), stearic acid (14-19 %) and linoleic acid (8-16 %). These acids give taste and and an odious odor to them. It was reported that there is no side effect of neem recorded on natural enemies such as predators, parasitoids and spiders when was used. Whereas some laboratories studies showed that some immature stages (nymphal and larval instar) of beneficial insects are susceptible to Azadirachtin when directly exposed to Azadirachtin (Mordue and Blackwell, 1993; Schumentterer, 1997). Such studies leads to have some limitation uses of neem product in IPM program (Gordon and Gimme, 2001). Isolation of active ingredient of Azadirachtin from neem tree has been done by David Morgan (Butterworth and Morgan, 1968). While the entire structural determination have been discovered by Steven Ley, W Kraus and K Nakanishi (Bilton et al. 1987; Kraus et al. 1987; Turner et al. 1987). The entire neem components are belonging to triterpenoid group, deriving from steroidal intermediate (Beek et al. 1986). Recently, biosynthesis of the product originated from oxidation and rearrangement reaction and was divided into three groups composed of a sound c-20-c-25 steroid side chains, such asnimbocen one (Gonzalez et al. 1997; Norlund et al. 1981). The limonoids were sub-divided depending on the presence and absence of further ring system modification.The C-seco-limonoids and salannin and nimbin are all the members of the former group, which suggested arising from nimbidinin, by a series reactions od oxidation which result in C-ring cleavage (Ley et al. 1993).

(12)

4 2. REVIW OF LITERATURE

2.1Biopesticide Azadirachtin

2.1.1 Effects of Azadirachtin on pests

Neem oil (Azadirachtin) is produce by extracting oil from neem seeds and it was founded to be effective against soft-bodied insects and mites, whereas useful towards phytopathogens (Isman, 2005). Azadirachtin is the main toxic, repellent, antifeedant, growth-inhibiting and oviposition inhibiting compound for insect pests (Martinez et al 2002). Azadirachtin known to be degrade fast in the field which makes it less effective on natural enemies. Application of Azadirachtin gives a proper result in cotton field this due to of preventing distraction of natural enemies.

Lewis (1971) observed that desert locus Schistocerca gregaria was deterred from feeding when exposed to Azadirachtin.

Steets et al (1975) for the first time, observed the effect and impact of Azadirachtin on the fecundity of Epilachna varivestis.

Steets (1976) recorded that the fecundity of females of Leptinotarsa decemlineata were reduced by 98 % when they exposed to neem products.

Rembold et al (1981) studied that Azadirachtin has a severe impact on oogenesis and embryogenesis of desert locus Locusta migratoria.

Hori et al. (1984) showed that Azadirachtin treated plant can also inhibit the growth of Manduca sexta without reducing its feeding process.

Gujar and Mehrotra (1984) found that 10 mg of Azadirachtin is able to affect the neuro-endocorine system of the Spodoptera lituralis on cotton, which result in the reduction of longevity, fecundity and reproduction of adult.

(13)

5

Dorn et al (1986) mentioned that high concentration of Azadirachtin application influence the development of both nymph and adult of Oncopeltus fasciatus greatly. Dorn (1986) reported adult that result from Azadirachtin treatment known to lose their ability to copulate, this in case of males of Oncopeltus fasciatus.

Dorn et al. (1987) showed that even low amount of Azadirachtin may result insect to lose their vigor and fitness while molting is not affected.

Karnavar (1987) reported that severe effects on ovarian development, fecundity and fertility occur during application of Azadirachtin.

Koolman et al. (1988) found that maximum dosage of Azadirachtin results in the modification of haemolymph ecdysteroid titre.

Tanzulbil and MaCaffrey (1990) recorded that fecundity of female of Spodoptera exempa was clearly reduced when they were exposed to Azadirachtin.

Singh (1993) concluded that the order Lepidoptera is less sensitive to Azadirachtin compared to other pests.

Mordue and Blackwell (1993) study recorded that Azadirachtin can effect various insects tissue and lead them to lose their vigor and activities.

Schmuterere and Wilps (1995) conducted study and reported that in some case when adult females expose to Azadirachtin, cannot distinguish male pheromones as in female of Ceratitis capitata (fruit fly).

Schmutterer (1995) found out that feeding process was reduced when plant was injected with Azadirachtin. This indicates that during feeding, insect were not only depend on gustatory organ, but also mouth parts or sensory organs.

Rembold (1995) evaluated that both formations of the neurohormones from the brain and their release from corpus cardiacum are decrease when the insect expose to Azadirachtin doses. Dose and time are factors that effecting on growth regulation of immature insects,

(14)

6

which cause death before or during molt are delay of molting process, as well as azadirachtin result in the inhibiting of formation and release of juvenile hormone, azadirachtin effect on the molting in which related to the both presence and absence of ecdysone and juvenile hormones.

Mordue (1996) noticed that the aphid reproduction to be sensitive toward Azadirachtin. For example, when aphid female expose to low doses of Azadirachtin by eating treated part with minimum concentration of Azadirachtin 5 ppm, showed that fecundity is reducing gradually within 48h from feeding and exposing, but when exposed to high concentration of Azadirachtin which means treated plant part containing more than 10 ppm. Nymphs that produce will fail to develop, grow and survive.

Parvez et al. (1998) observed that neem oil extract gave a proper control of jassid by reducing pest population showing its feeding-deterrent o repellent affect.

Ma et al. (2000) found when larva of the pest cotton bollworm that fed on plant parts exposed and treated with Azadirachtin, they may get deformed any time in ıts life. Therefore Azadirachtin considered an effective method for IPM program in management of H. armigera.

Ahmed, (2000) also recorded that some of Dipteran females and various beetles were deterred during oviposition when exposed to Azadirachtin.

Ahmed (2000) showed that the longevity of insects are various when they exposing to Azadirachtin ingredient, prolongation of lifespan result in some coleopteran while longevity in Homoptera can be negatively affected and result in the reduction of their lifespan.

Ogemah (2003) study showed the effect of Azadirachtin on growth regulation of insect, it is necessary to understand and have abundant information about insect hormones that are responsible for growth and development of insects, molting hormone (Ecdysteroides) and juvenile hormone which are formed in the prothoracic glands of insect are the most important one.

(15)

7

Dos Santos et al (2004) showed that application of high concentration of neem leads in the reduction of molting and death of Aphis gossypii.

Isman (2005) assumed that Azadirachtin has two effects on insects pests including physiological level, Azadirachtin prohibit releasing molting hermons (Ecdysteroids), which result in the failure of molting process in immature stages, as well as in adults female undergo the same mechanism and result in sterility of female.

Panhwar (2005) have been observed that some lepidpteran females will not lay eggs on plant parts treated with Azadirachtin, this have been recorded on cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera.

Khattack et al. (2006) also conducted an experiment and found that 3% of neem seed extract can decrease the jassid population on cotton 168 h after application.

Khattak et al. (2006) Studies found that no reduction of the whitefly population seen during 1% neem oil and 1 % neem seed water extract application for 24 hours, However when this ratio elevated to 2 % of neem seed extract whitefly population showed slight reduction, while in case of applying 2 % neem oil and 3 % neem seed water extract a significant population reduction of a 42 % of occurred, noticed that both antifeedant and deterrent effects led to reduce white fly in 168 hours.

Kraiss and Cullen (2008) conducted study the effect of Azadirachtin on Aphis glysines showed that nymph treated with Azadirachtin need much more time to reach maturity with untreated nymph, on another hand they take long-term during immature stages, as well as Azadirachtin result in the reduction of A. glycines population which influence and prolong the non-reproductive stages and this lead to delay population expandability, also noticed that Azadirachtin have much severe effect on nymph compared with adult which increase the mortality of first nymph instar.

(16)

8

Bhardwaj and Ansari (2014) showed that neem oil (Azadirachtin) has an effect on the reproduction of both male and female of insects. They stated that Azadirachtin caused a decrease in the size of testes, sperm number in male and block the development of overy, overiole and oocyte in female.

2.1.2Effect of Azadirachtin on Predators

Azadirachtin compound has no side effects and to be safe toward natural enemies and other non-target insects and organism (Lowry et al. 1995). On the other hand, Azadirachtin is not a permanent residue known to degrade rapidly and easily when exposed to sunlight (Cobani et al. 2002).

Yadav and Patel (1990) conducted study and recorded that the lacewing adult Brinckochrysa scelestes were repellent from oviposition on cotton treated with neem product.

Eisenlohr (1992) concluded that NeemAzal had no effect on oviposition of coccinellid female even when fed on the treated eggs of Bemisia tabaci.

Schmuterer (1997) found that the eggs of Brinckochrysa scelestes hatched and first instar larva emerged normally without any side effects from sprayed eggs, also reported that there is no toxicity on eggs and adults that exposed to neem product, as well as the fecundity is not affected, the number of oviposition eggs by female are not decreased, however the number larva that prey aphid and fed on not reduced.

Schmuterer (1997) recorded that neem product had no side effect on first instar emerging from treated eggs. Also exposed adults were not influenced on their fecundity and vigor, while the same application increased the mortality of forth instar and pupa that produce from sprayed larva, whereas adults that occurred from surviving pupa showed wings morphogenetic failing.

Banken et al (1998) found that Azadirachtin had a severe effect on the oviposition of C. septumpunctata. They recorded that spraying Azadirachtin with a rate of 100 ppm oviposition of the pest were severely decreased, while maximum rate of 600 ppm blocked entirely the oviposition.

(17)

9

Gordon and Gimme (2001) found that no effect noticed on the predation behavior of both predators M. signatus and H. conformis when they feed on larva of cotton bollworm H. armigera treated and sprayed with Azadirachtin.

Rashid et al (2012) tested that high concentration of neem oil has severe effect on the growth and fecundity of cotton mealy bug, also noticed that the neem oil residue toxicity persit or remain active after 3 months from application this may be because of severe concentration of application.

Jenkins et al (2003) showed that neem kernel oil could persist as long as 5 months without any reduction in high temperatures.

Togbe et al. (2015) conducted the experiment the effects of neem oil on some natural enemies orders Coccinellidae, Pentatomodae and Chrysopidae the results showed that the area that applied and treated with neem oil observed no effects on the population of natural enemies.

2.1.3 Indirect effects of Azadirachtin on Predators

Schneider et al. (2004) reported that in some cases there are to be indirect side effects of Azadirachtin on natural enemies, while, some studies have been showed that exposure of some predators to Azadirachtin will result in the reduction of longevity and predation behavior.

Medina et al. (2004) found that Azadirachtin may lead to inhibit prey finding for example in case of green lace wing C. carnea which inhibits female oviposition as well as, both fertility and fecundity was indirectly affected.

Banken et al. (1997) observed that indirect effects of Azadirachtin may be specific on stage and age, for example development period of fourth larvae instar of Coccinella septempunctata was affected indirectly more than first instar toward Azadirachtin, means there is variability in the same species but different stages or development period.

Qi et al. (2001) investigated that Azadirachtin biopesticide has sublethal effects on both larva and adult of predator Mallada signatus (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), showed the distortion of internal organs when exposed to Azadirachtin.

(18)

10

Kraiss and Cullen (2008) reported that exhibited increase development occurred when first instar larvae Harmonia axyridis exposed to Azadirachtin without indirect effect of adult female fecundity.

2.2 Chemical Pesticides

2.2.1 Effect of Chemical Pesticide on Pests

Chemical control is considered one of the most effective ways to control pests (Pemintal and Levitan 1986). Cotton is considered one of the susceptible plants against insects, therefore suggested to be necessary to control and manage cotton pests by chemical control. Insecticides application depends on many factors such aspect emergence, fecundity etc. Insecticides are effective only in short term with not exceeding15 days. Chemical pest management would have a side effect when large areas were treated with greater amounts. Therefore many scientists suggest using both chemical and biological control inter grated (Asrorov et al 2014).

Ishaaya (1987) reported that mixing deferent insecticides give proper results; in case of whitefly population can be significantly controlled when cypermethrin is mixed with various Organophosphate groups.

Kidd and Rummel (1997) showed that when insecticides are applied to cotton crop leads cotton to lose its vigor.

Godfrey and Fuson (2001) recorded that application of insecticides result in the development of the secondary pest, for instance aphids, spiders and population of mites will increase when cotton is treated chemically against bollworm Helicoverpa armigera. Nauen and Bretschneider (2002) reported that Neonicotinoid insecticide known to be the quickest insecticide class that taken place into the market since the set of Pyrethroids. Mote et al. (1995) found that the seed treated with Imidaclorpid raise the nitrogen and chlorophyll content in cotton plant.

Satpute et al. (2002) recorded that during the application of high concentration of Imidaclorpid insecticide against cotton pests will attract additional amount of Coccinellids and Chrysopa predators.

(19)

11

Kannan et al. (2004) Imidaclorpid have five nitrogen atoms, which seeds use them for growing , thus treated seed will be safer and will have more resistant against pests, as well as will attract extra predators when Imidaclorpid is used.

Kannan et al. (2004) reported that treated seeds of transgenic cotton with Imidaclorpid do not give only proper control, as well as predator attraction may occur C. septumpunctata, C. carnea and spiders prefer seeds treated with Imidaclorpid than untreated once.

Liu et al. (2004) illustrated that Lambda-cyhalothrin is useful for controlling P. xylostella on cabbage plant.

De-song et al (2005) described that after treating cotton with insecticides, level of sugar and soluble protein raise which serve as a food diet for aphid and mites and result in the secondary pests to cotton crop.

El-Dewy (2006) recorded that the effect of Imidaclorpid on whitefly stages is different, found that Imidaclorpid effect immature stages of whitefly more than adult stage, this because of the their different feeding time, adults usually visit seedling and start feed at early morning and then leave the treated seedling, while immature stage found to feed almost all the day and contacted to the treated seedling more than adults do, thus exposed much more to insecticide.

Jemec et al. (2007) reported that among this class Imidaclorpid insecticide is measured the largest selling insecticide around the world.

Irungu (2007) conducted experiment study the effect of Lambda-cyhalothrin on P. xylostella on cabbage plant, results showed that the treated plants with insecticide did not show any differences from untreated control plants.

Desneux et al (2007) reported that generally insecticides affect the fertility and tend to block feeding and oviposition of arthropods. In fewer cases female lay eggs on insecticides treated plant leading to minimize fertility, eggs or population density.

El-naggar and Zidan (2013) found that the most effective way to be used for IPM program in controlling cotton pests is application of systematic insecticides against thrips, aphids, whitefly and jassid, these pest are measured as the most dangerous pests that attacking cotton crop due to their sap sucking from plant.

(20)

12

Shonga et al (2013) carried out study and found that mixing insecticides during aphid control given proper results, for example mixing carbosulfan with endosulfan and endosulfan with furathiocarb give control about 65.88 % and 61.38 %.

Jehan and Zidan (2013) conducted experiment the effect of Imidaclorpid insecticide on cotton pests thrips, jassid and whitefly, showed that the population of thrips reduces about 91.3 % and 87.5 % when treated by Imidaclorpid , while reduction of jassid noticed and was 70 % and 73 %, as well as in case of whitefly (adults) the population decreased about 60 % and 66.7 %, while in case of immature stage of whitefly population Imidaclorpid reduce 75 % and 66.75 % the population.

2.2.2 Effect of Insecticides on Predators

Systemic insecticides are suggested to be fully safe toward natural enemies, due to direct exposure during feeding, but in the same time systemic insecticides may result in the contamination of plant nectar which increase the mortality of many parasitoids that belong to nectar feeding insects El-Wakeil et al. (2013).

Kiman et al. (1985) observed that the accumulation of active ingredient in the flower may result in the indirect effects on natural enemies that use nectar and pollens as a source of food, for example minute pirate bug Orius spp. may influence indirectly when feed on plant nectar treated with chemicals.

Olszak et al. (1994) conducted that some insecticides such as teflubenzuron, fenoxycarb and flutenoxuron could cause severe effects on the fecundity of ladybird C. septumpunctata, with chlorofluazuron being the most effective.

Decock et al. (1996) study carried out that predatory pentatomid bug Podisus maculeventris are affected and poisoned when expose to Imidaclorpid residue during feeding and prey ingestion treated with Imidaclorpid insecticide.

(21)

13

Zomora et al. (1997) described that the Imidaclorpid is not highly toxic to various natural enemies compared with others, for instance Imidaclorpid has minimum toxic toward predator C. carnea and parasitoid such as Eretmocerus, as well as pupal parasitoid of whitefly and Trichogramma, and egg parasitoid of lepidopterous pests.

Elzen (2001) conducted study by applying various insecticides against O. insidiosus, Orius spp. Results were different among male and female, showed malathion result in more toxicity toward male than Tebufenizide and cyfluthrin, while Imidaclorpid was high toxic against female of O. insidiosus, as well as minimum effects by tubefenozide.

Liu and Chen (2001) demonstrated that the application of Fenoxycarb effected the development prolongation of the predator Chysoperla rufilabris (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) among all stages.

Meena et al. (2002) showed that promiscuous and improper use of insecticides for controlling pests will result in various serious problems and extra side effects including pest resistance, outbreak of secondary pest and mortality of non-target insects, on another hand their side effect on human and environmental pollution.

Pasqualini and Civolani (2003) conducted an experiment to determine the effects of six different insecticides on coccinellids preying on aphids occurring in apple, pear and peach. Effects of all insecticides used in the experiment including Organophosphates such as Chlorpyrifos, Chlorpyrifos-Methyl, Ozinphos-Methyl and Malathion and Carbamates such as Methomyl and Nereistoxin were varied on the mortality of aphids. Stark et al. (2007) studies recorded that insecticide application have also sublethal effects on Coccinellids that cause instant disturbance of their behavior as well as minimizing vigor of Coccinellids capacity for prey location and predation, on another hand several feeding behavior effects may also develop for example, repellent and antifeedant.

Carvalho et al. (2003) studies carried out the use of tebufenozide insecticide cause mischievous impact on production and egg fertility of Chrysoperla externa (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae).

Alix et al. (2001) conducted study the effects on natural enemies that exposing to insecticide during control program are different among males and females population this due to of behavioral and physiological differences between male and female, in case of

(22)

14

Hymenopteran parasitoids, show the number of female parasitoid decrease more than male when exposed to organophosphate chlorpyrifos.

Solangi et al. (2007) recorded that the vigor and capacity of Coccinellids adult and 4thinstar larva influenced toward Dimethoate treatment, observed that the adult fed lowest number of treated aphids compared to untreated aphids. While 4thinstar larva dominated and consume untreated aphids among treated aphids.

Bacci et al. (2007) found that the application of Imidaclorpid and Malathion result in the mortality of parasitoid Encarsia spp.

Cloyd (2012) recorded predators that feed on treated plant affected more than predators who feed on treated prey, in case of hemipteran predators which indirectly influence more when feed on treated plant sap than coccinellid which feed on treated prey.

Szczepaniec et al. (2012) showed that the systemic insecticides may effect on predators indirectly among various mechanisms including prey eradication, taking doses by ingesting treated prey.

(23)

15 3. MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was conducted from July to August of 2015. Experiments were performed at field experimental of Agricultural Faculty of Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey. The objective of this studying was to estimate the effect of some insecticides on cotton pests as well as their predators.

The experiments were started by planting the cottons seeds in the field of Agricultural Faculty, Dicle University. The experiment field divided into 4 blocks, each block divided into 4 plots, with total of 16 plots. The size of each plot was 10 × 5 m, and the distance between each plot was 2 m. All standard requirements for agronomic practices were taken including fertilization, irrigation, cleaning, etc.

(24)

16 The field design:

5m 5m 5m 5m 10m 10m 10m 10m 2m 2m 2m

(25)

17

Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin insecticides were used and sprayed as treatments in this study.

(26)

18

Many methods were suggested for the estimation of insect pests and their populations before application. One of the most used ways was diagonal method to monitor and count the insect pest and beneficial insects. The counting and data collecting proceeded with naked eyes. Data collection was based on choosing randomly 20 cotton plant samples from each plot then count pest insects and predators on plant sample. The samples (pests and their predators) were taken from top, lower and middle of each cotton plant.

(27)

19

Pre-treatment data collection has been obtained 24 hours before application, while post-treatment data collection was recorded every 48 hours for two weeks.

Table 1. The applied insecticides treatment

Trade name Insectıcıde

Align, Neemix, Margosan-o Karate

Admire

Azadirachtin

Lambda-cyhalothrin Imidaclorpid

(28)

20

Statistical Data Analysis

Results of this study both pests and their predators were analyzed by statistical software (IBM SPSS Statistics B.21). The significant differences were determined by one-way (ANOVA), Tukey’s HSD and test square difference (LSD) of post hoc differentiation significant with p≤ 0.05.

These data have been analyzed with Henderson-Tilton formula as bellow:

Henderson-Tilton’s formula

Corrected % = (1 - n in Co before treatment * n in T after treatment

n in Co after treatment * n in T before treatment

) * 100

Where : n = Insect population , T = treated , Co = control

The rate of biological effect was found after treated with Henderson-Tilton formula all treatment replication.

As the estimations on the table are calculated from up to down similar lower case lettered groups, from left to right upper case lettered groups have no significant differences.

(29)

21 4- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

RESULTS

Effects of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on the infestation of Whitefly (Bemisia tabaci Genn.)

Azadirachtin showed a significant difference in the decrease of whitefly population 1 day, 3 day and 7 day after application. No significant difference of population reduction appeared in11 day and15 day after application. The overall reduction in the mean percent of whitefly population 15 day after spray increased to 99.31 % mortality (Table 2).

Imidaclorpid showed a significant difference in the reduction of whitefly population 1 day and 3 day after the spray. However, 7 day, 11 day and 15 day after the treatment, there was no any significant difference in the whitefly population, while maximum efficiency of Imidaclorpid in mean percent of mortality (100 % mortality) of whitefly population was found in 15day after spray (Table 2).

Lambda-cyhalothrin also noticed had a significant difference in the reduction of whitefly reduction 1 day, 3 day and 7 day after application, while 11 day and 15 day did not showed any significant difference in the reduction of whitefly population. Thought there was a severe increase in the mean percent of population reduction found 15 day after spray 99.35 % mortality (Table 2).

(30)

22

Table 2. Showing the effect of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on the infestation of whitefly on each cotton plant.

Counts Azadirachtin Imidaclorpid

Lambda-cyhalothrin Control The mea n of indivi dua l n umber (S tanda rd Er ror ) + Pre-applicatio n 11,75±1,10 9,50±1,19 10,00±2,08 2,50±2,50 1.Day 9,25±0,94 6,00±0,57 5,25±1,37 5,00±0,81 3.Day 5,25±0,62 3,00±0,40 4,00±1,22 6,25±2,25 7.Day 1,00±0,57 1,00±0,70 0,50±0,28 5,50±1,19 11.Day 0,25±0,25 0,50±0,50 0,75±0,47 5,00±1,73 15.Day 0,25±0,25 0 0,25±0,25 6,5±2,39 The mea n r ate of biol ogica l ef fe cts (Standa rd e rror ) 1.Day 59,98±3,96 A, c 67,16±4,59 A, b 74,82±2,61 A, c 3.Day 81,82±2,12 A, b 86,21±3,42 A, a 85,21±2,87 A, bc 7.Day 96,31±2,16 A, a 93,70±4,59 A, a 96,69±2,16 A, ab 11.Day 98,86±1,13 A, a 96,87±3,12 A, a 96,16±4,48 A, ab 15.Day 99,31±0,68 A, a 100 A, a 99,35±0,64 A, a - The rate of biological effect was found after treated with Henderson-Tilton formula all treatment replication. - Means within colons sharing the same small letter and a row sharing the same capital letter are not

significantly different.

(31)

23

Effects of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on the infestation of cotton Aphid (Aphis gossypii)

Azadirachtin showed different effects and significant increase in the aphid population reduction 1 day, 3 day and 15 day after spray. While thought there were no significant difference effects on aphid population 7 day and 11 day after spray, overall mean percent reduction of aphid population was noticed 7 day after spray 93.45 % mortality (Table 3). Imidaclorpid noticed had different effects on aphid population 1 day and 3 day after application, as well as found to have no significant difference in the decrease of aphid population 7 day, 11 day and 15 day after application, higher percentage of mortality of aphid population were noticed 7 day after application 97.815 % mortality (Table 3). Lambda-cyhalothrin were thought to had significant difference effects in the reduction of aphid population 1day and 3day, while no significant difference record 7 day, 11 day and 15 day after spray, higher efficiency of effects and mortality observed 7 day after spray 93.31 % mortality (Table 3).

(32)

24

Table 3. Showing the effect of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on infestation of Aphid on each cotton plant.

Lambda-cyhalothrin Control The mea n of indivi dua l n umber (S tanda rd Er ror ) Pre-applicat ion 6,00±2,12 12,00±3,24 8,75±4,10 12,75±3,98 1.Day 4,25±2,01 5,25±1,49 4,25±1,97 13,50±2,10 3.Day 2,25±1,03 4,00±1,58 1,75±0,62 23,00±10,55 7.Day 1,00±0,40 1,25±1,25 1,50±0,50 36,50±20,20 11.Day 2,25±0,62 2,25±0,25 3,50±0,86 26,50±6,81 15.Day 2,25±0,47 2,25±0,75 2,50±0,86 19,50±2,46 The mea n r ate of biol ogica l ef fe cts (Standa rd e rror ) (Standa rt ha ta) 1.Day 40,97±9,90 A, b 47,83±14,61 A, b 55,51±15,88 A, b 3.Day 81,52±7,54 A, a 84,59±5,26 A, a 87,66±4,71 A, a 7.Day 93,45±3,00 A, a 97,81±2,18 A, a 93,31±2,47 A, a 11.Day 77,94±6,01 A, a 88,99±2,87 A, a 80,98±3,43 A, a 15.Day 68,66±11,42 A, ab 84,23±8,35 A, a 79,75±7,04 A, a

- The rate of biological effect was found after treated with Henderson-Tilton formula all treatment replication. - Means within colons sharing the same small letter and a row sharing the same capital letter are not

(33)

25

Effects of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on the infestation of Bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera)

Azadirachtin showed different effects in the reduction of bollworm population 1day, 3 day, 7 day, 11 day after spray, whereas no significant different noticed in the decrease of bollworm population 15 day after spray. Respectively 15 day after spray gave maximum successful control by a 97.40 % mortality of the bollworm population (Table 4).

Imidaclorpid were thought had significant different on reduction of bollworm population 1 day, 3 day and 15 day after spray, while 7 day and 11 day after spray did not noticed any significant difference from 3 day after spray. Overall mean percent of increasing bollworm population reduction 92.52 % mortality 11 day after spray (Table 4).

1 day, 3 day, 7 day, 11day and 15 day after lambda-cyhalothrin application did not show any significant effect difference in the reduction of bollworm population but higher mean percent mortality in the population were 11 day and 15 day after spray 94.90 % and 94.81 % mortality (Table 4).

(34)

26

Table 4. showing the effect of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on infestation of Bollworm on each cotton plant.

Lambda-cyhalothrin Control The mea n of indivi dua l n umber (S tanda rd Er ror ) Pre-application 9,25±1,65 10,75±1,88 9,50±1,19 7,75±1,60 1.Day 6,25±0,75 4,00±0,91 4,25±0,75 9,00±1,22 3.Day 4,00±0,57 1,00±1,00 1,50±0,86 7,25±1,54 7.Day 1,00±0,40 1,75±1,18 0,75±0,75 6,25±2,01 11.Day 0,75±0,47 0,50±0,28 0,25±0,25 4,75±0,85 15.Day 0,25±0,25 0±0 0,50±0,50 5,75±0,85 The mea n r ate of biol ogica l eff ec ts (Standa rd e rror ) 1.Day 39,43±5,26 B, c 68,42±3,88 A, b 61,36±5,55 A, a 3.Day 52,75±2,58 B, bc 91,09±8,90 A, ab 83,81±9,86 A, a 7.Day 83,15±7,49 A, a 84,50±9,89 A, ab 88,37±11,62 A, a 11.Day 81,54±11,36 A, ab 92,52±4,35 A, ab 94,90±5,09 A, a 15.Day 97,40±2,59 A, a 100 A, a 94,81±5,18 A, a

(35)

27

Effects of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on the infestation of Jassid (Amrasca biguttula)

During jassid infestation control, Azadirachtin showed a significant difference in reduction of jassid population 1day and 3day after Azadirachtin application. Best control found 15day after application giving 72.37 % mortality in jassid population (Table 5). Ġmidaclorpid did not show any significant difference effects in the reduction of jassid population among each period, but highest mortality recorded 7 day and 11 day after spray 75.80 % and 75.44 % mortality (Table 5).

Lambda-cyhalothrin was found to have different effects in the reduction of jassid population 1day and 3 day after application, whereas no significant difference recorded 7 day, 11 day and 15 day after application. In the study 3 day after application gave best result which reduces 87.70 % population of jassid (Table 5).

(36)

28

Table 5. Showing the effect of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on jassid infestation on each cotton plant.

Lambda-cyhalothrin Control The mea n of indivi dua l n umber (S tanda rd Er ror ) Pre- application 47,00±3,71 61,25±6,38 71,75±5,10 41,25±5,02 1.Day 37,50±6,03 33,25±5,86 36,75±3,32 49,50±2,90 3.Day 21,75±2,75 24,56±2,72 13,25±3,81 62,25±11,10 7.Day 15,75±2,17 15,25±4,19 12,50±4,33 39,75±14,16 11.Day 18,75±1,93 15,50±2,17 14,50±1,32 43,25±11,73 15.Day 11,00±1,58 12,25±2,98 9,50±0,64 36,75±10,45 The mea n r ate of biol ogica l ef fe cts (Standa rd e rror ) 1.Day 33,28±10,37 A, b 55,00±5,32 A, a 56,73±4,36 A, b 3.Day 69,45±2,33 A, a 71,33±7,04 A, a 87,70±3,76 A, a 7.Day 65,54±2,71 A, a 75,80±5,81 A, a 82,93±5,45 A, a 11.Day 61,58±3,57 B, a 75,44±3,29 A, a 80,18±2,81 A, a 15.Day 72,37±6,28 A, a 74,49±9,89 A, a 84,83±1,62 A, a

(37)

29

Effects of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on the infestation of Thrips (Thrips tabaci)

There were significant differences in the reduction of thrips population 11day after spray as 83.57 % followed by 7day as 73.35 %, 15 day as 65.37, 3 day 5 as 8.32 %, and 1 day as 40.1 % (Table 6).

Imidaclorpid showed significant decrease in thrips population 1 day, 3 day and 7 day after spray, while 11 day and 15 day did not show any significant difference in thrips population reduction. Overall increase in the thrips population reduction found 7 day and 11 day after spray reduce the population 87.21 % and 87.04 % (table 6).

Different effects on thrips population reduction noticed 1day, 3 day, 7 day and 11 day after Lambda-cyhalothrin application, higher mortality 11 day after spray reduce 89.63 % population of thrips (table 6).

(38)

30

Table 6. Showing the effect of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on thrips infestation on each cotton plant.

Lambda-cyhalothrin Control The mea n of indivi dua l n umber (S tanda rd Er ror ) Pre- application 49,50±12,38 51,75±15,90 63,75±7,82 73,25±21,62 1.Day 37,00±9,02 30,75±10,45 33,75±5,87 93,75±19,12 3.Day 25,50±5,23 12,25±2,42 22,25±4,47 96,00±18,58 7.Day 20,75±3,90 8,25±1,75 18,25±3,90 121,25±23,84 11.Day 15,00±3,55 8,75±1,54 12,50±4,57 147,75±10,27 15.Day 22,75±6,08 10,50±2,32 15,25±3,75 104,25±14,47 The mea n r ate of biol ogi ca l eff ec ts (S tanda rd err o r) 1.Day 40,01±3,86 B, c 53,53±2,90 AB, b 58,01±5,75 A, c 3.Day 58,32±4,31 A, bc 75,87±6,60 A, ab 73,74±2,79 A, bc 7.Day 73,35±2,23 B, ab 87,04±3,63 AB, a 83,08±2,00 A, ab 11.Day 83,57±3,37 A, a 87,21±5,08 A, a 89,63±3,46 A, a 15.Day 65,37±7,29 A, ab 78,86±8,42 A, a 83,52±2,86 A, ab

(39)

31

Effect of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on cotton Predators Chysopid

Azadirachtin showed no significant difference in the reduction of Chrysopid natural enemy after spray, but slight reduction noticed 15d after spray (Table 7).

Imidaclorpid had no significant effect on the reduction of Chrysopid population in case of Lambda-cyhalothrin slight reduction occurred 15dafter spray (Table 7).

Table 7. Showing the effect of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on Chrysopid population on each cotton plant.

Counts Azadirachtin Imidachlorpid

Lambda-cyhalothrin Control The mea n of indivi dua l n umber (S tanda rd Er ror ) Pre- application 16,25±4,25 A, a 17,25±3,37 A, a 21,75±8,07 A, a 18,25±4,69 A, a 1.Day 16,00±1,68 A, a 14,50±3,37 A, a 17,00±1,47 A, a 19,25±1,65 A, a 3.Day 17,50±2,72 A, a 20,50±5,69 A, a 22,50±1,55 A, a 29,00±6,74 A, a 7.Day 15,75±3,85 A, a 18,00±2,73 A, a 17,50±4,29 A, a 20,50±7,12 A, a 11.Day 17,75±2,28 A, a 19,00±3,43 A, a 17,50±4,57 A, a 18,50±3,61 A, a 15.Day 9,25±2,59 A, a 15,50±3,47 A, a 13,50±2,62 A, a 13,75±2,49 A, a - The rate of biological effect was found after treated with Henderson-Tilton formula all treatment replication. - Means within colons sharing the same small letter and a row sharing the same capital letter are not

(40)

32

Effect of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on cotton Predators Cocinellid (coccinellid septumpunctata)

Azadirachtin found to not have any significant effect on coccinellid poulation, light decrease in the population were noticed 15 day after application. Application of both Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin did not show any significant effect on coccinellid population (Table 8).

Table 8. Showing the effect of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on Coccinellid population on each cotton plant.

Lambda-cyhalothrin Control The mea n of indivi dua l n umber (S tanda rd Er ror ) Pre- application 3,00±1,47 A, a 2,25±1,10 A, a 4,25±0,94 A, a 3,75±1,88 A, a 1.Day 2,00±0,91 A, a 2,25±1,03 A, a 1,25±1,25 A, a 2,50±1,19 A, a 3.Day 1,50±1,19 A, a 3,50±1,25 A, a 2,00±0,70 A, a 3,75±0,85 A, a 7.Day 1,00±1,00 A, a 2,25±0,85 A, a 1,00±0,70 A, a 1,75±0,85 A, a 11.Day 1,50±0,95 A, a 2,75±1,10 A, a 0,75±0,75 A, a 1,25±0,62 A, a 15.Day 0,75±0,47 A, a 2,25±1,03 A, a 1,00±0,40 A, a 2,50±0,50 A, a - The rate of biological effect was found after treated with Henderson-Tilton formula all treatment replication. - Means within colons sharing the same small letter and a row sharing the same capital letter are not

(41)

33

Effect of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on cotton Predators

Orius spp.

Application of Azadirachtin and Imidaclorpid on cotton did not show any significant effect on Orius spp. population, while Lambda-cyhalothrin showed slight significant effects in the reduction of Orius spp. 1 day, 3 day and 7 day after spray, whereas 11 day and 15 day had no significant difference on Orius spp. population after application (Table 9).

Table 9. Showing the effect of Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin on Orius spp. population on each cotton plant.

Lambda-cyhalothrin Control The mea n of indivi dua l n umber (S tanda rd Er ror ) Pre-application 3,75±1,93 A, a 4,75±1,75 A, a 4,50±1,50 A, a 2,25±0,85 A, a 1.Day 2,25±0,75 A, a 1,75±1,75 A, a 0,25±0,25 A, b 0,75±0,47 A, a 3.Day 0,25±0,25 A, a 2,50±1,32 A, a 1,25±0,47 A, ab 0 A, a 7.Day 0,75±0,75 A, a 1,00±0,40 A, a 1,50±0,64 A, ab 1,50±0,86 A, a 11.Day 0,75±0,47 A, a 2,50±1,50 A, a 1,50±0,64 A, ab 1,00±0,57 A, a 15.Day 1,75±0,75 A, a 3,25±1,43 A, a 2,50±1,19 A, ab 2,75±1,25 A, a - The rate of biological effect was found after treated with Henderson-Tilton formula all treatment replication. - Means within colons sharing the same small letter and a row sharing the same capital letter are not

- Tukey test was used for evaluate the rate of biological effect (P>0.05) (SPSS 21.0 version). -

(42)

34 DISCUSSION

Cotton crop is considered a sensitive plant against many plant sap sucking insects that cause severe damages to the crop yield, making the insecticide as a necessarily for controlling these infestations. In this study Azadirachtin showed a significant effect in the reduction of population of whitefly, aphid, bollworm, jassid and thrips. Khattack et al. (2006) investigated that neem oil in recommended percentage significantly decrease the infestation of aphid, jassid and thrips. In our finding we found all insecticide sustained quiet same effects on pest population. Lambda-cyhalothrin gave the best mortality among all pest population, result in control of whitefly and aphid were highly the same, but among bollworm, jassid and thrips Azadirachtin found to be less effective compared with Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin, same situation for Imidaclorpid in control of thrips appeared to be less effective than Lambda-cyhalothrin. Khan and Atta (2007) carried out study and compare the impact of neem oil and Imidaclorpid against whitefly population, results found that neem oil is highly safer and much effective against whitefly population infestation, same my results which found that Azadirachtin showed different significant effects on whitefly population on cotton more than Imidaclorpid, but both seemed to appear safe toward natural enemies unlike their results.

Khattack et al (2006) tested and found that neem extracts lost their active ingredient and efficiency after 336 h from application, while pyrethroid group did not show any decrease in the efficiency after 336 h from application, unlike our finding which appeared that Azadirachtin stay active and toxic against pest populations even after 15 day from application. El-Naggar et al (2013) mentioned that Imidaclorpid reduce noticeably the cotton sap sucking pest populations, found that Imidaclorpid decrease the population of thrips 91.3 %, while recorded reduction on jassid population 73 % mortality, as well as showed that Imidaclorpid cause 66.7% reduction in the infestation of whitefly population, almost same of our finding except that found in our study that Imidaclorpid had much more effect on whitefly population compare with their study which population reduction for thrips, jassid and whitefly estimated 87.21 % thrips, 75.80 % for jassid and 100 % for whitefly. Among this study all the pesticides used for controlling cotton pest population

(43)

35

showed different effects on natural enemies, no significant different recorded among Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and cyhalothrin, but in case of Orius spp. Lambda-cyhalothrin showed different significant effects and show initial effects which reduce the the Orius spp. population significantly 1 day after application, but the efficiency of Lambda-cyhalothrin reduced 3d toward natural enemy Orius spp. 15 day after application Orius spp. started to increase again in the population, while Azadirachtin showed longer effect on Orius spp.. Both Azadirachtin and Lambda-cyhalothrin found to reduce significantly the population of each Orius spp., Coccinellid and Chrysopid, while Imidaclorpid showed a very slight effect and reduction on natural enemies’ populations.

(44)

36 5- CONCLUSION

It can be concluded from this research that Azadirachtin, Imidaclorpid and Lambda-cyhalothrin had excellent effects on decreasing population of whitefly, thrips, jassid, bollworm and aphid on cotton field. Thus each of them can be used efficiently in management programs against cotton sucking pests. But also considering their side effects on their natural enemies, all of them showed to had no sıgnıfıcant effects in the reduction of predators population, but still using Azadirachtin and other botanical insecticides is better compared with chemical because known to be more friendly with environment and have no risk on human, mammals and other non-target organisms.

(45)

37

6- REFERNCES

Ahmed, M. M. M., 2000.Studies on the Control of Insect Pests in Vegetables (Okra, Tomato, and Onion) In Sudan with Special Reference to Neem preparations. University of Giessen, Germany, pp. 13-31.

Ali, A., M. A. Bhatti and K. J. Ahmed, 1993. Role of weather in fluctuating the population of Amrasca biguttula biguttula (Dist.) and Thrips tabaci (Lind.)proc. Pakistan congr. Zool., 13 133-139.

Alix, A., A. M. Cortesero, J. P. Nénon and J. P Anger, 2001. Selectivity Assessment of Chlorfenvinphos Reevaluated by including Physiological and Behavioral Effects on an Important Beneficial Insect. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 20 2530- 2536.

Anon., 2004a. Agricultral production summery.Turkish republic, National institute of statistics, Ankara.

Anonymous, 2005. Studied the effect of

jassid-infestation,on'okra'http://prr.hec.gov.pk/Chapters/813S-2.pdf.

Anonymous, 2012. Insect pest management in cotton ( https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/plants/field-crops-and-pastures/broadacre-field-crops/integrated-pest-management/ipm-information-by-crop/cotton)

Ascher, K.R.S., 1993. Nonconventional insecticidal effects of pesticides available from the neem tree, Azadirachta indica. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 22: 433- 449.

Asrorov, A. M., H. A. Aisa, A.Yili, M. Q Ling,. Veshkurova, O., Sultanova and E., and Salikhov, S., 2014. Composite Insecticides Effects on Defensive and Nutritious Compounds in Cotton Leaves. J Plant Biochem Physiol, 2 (122), 2.

(46)

38

Bacci, L., E.J.G. Pereira, A.L.B Crespo, M.C. Picanço, D.C. Coutinho and M.E. Sena, 2007. Eficiência e seletividade de inseticidas para o manejo de mosca branca e inimigos naturais em melancia. Revista Ceres, 54: 425-431.

Banken, J. A. O. and J. D. Stark, 1998. Multiple routes of pesticide exposure and the risk of pesticides to biological controls: a study of neem and the sevenspotted lady beetle. (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). J Econ Entomol 91:1–6.

Banken, J.A. and J. D. Stark, 1997. Stage and Age Influence on the Susceptibility of Coccinella septempunctata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) after Direct Exposure to Neemix, a NeemInsecticide. Journal of Economic Entomology. 90 1102-1105.

Bhardwaj, A. K. and B. A. Ansari, 2015.Effect of Nimbecidine and Neemazal on the developmental programming of cotton pest, Earias vittella.

Borah, P.K. 1995. Insect pest complex in brinjal (Solanum melongena L.). Ann. Agric. Res., 16: 93-94

Brahmachari, G., 2004. Neem - an omnipotent plant: a retrospection. Chembiochem 5:408-421.

Butterworth, J. H. and E. D. Morgan, 1968. Isolation of a substance that suppresses feeding in locusts. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun.: 23-24.

Caboni, P., M. Cabras, A. Angioni, M. Russo and P. Cabras, 2002. Persistence of azadirachtin residues on olives after field treatment.J.Agric. Food Chem. 50:3491–94 74

Cloyd, R., 2012. Indirect effects of pesticides on natural enemies. INTECH Open Access Publisher.

Decock, A., P. Declereg, L. Tiny and D. Degheele, 1996. Toxicity of diafenthiuron and imidacloprid to the predatory bug Podisusmaculiventris (Heteroptera: Pentoatomidae). Environ. Entomol. 25, 476– 480.

(47)

39

Desneux, N., A. Decourtye and J.M Delpuech, 2007. The Sublethal Effects of Pesticides on Beneficial Arthropods. Annual Review of Entomology;52 81-106.

De-song, Y., H. Fu-de Z.H Li, G. Shuang-jun and J. Hua, 2005. Effect of Tetranychus turkestani Ugarov & Nikolski on Contents of Chlorophyll and Soluble Sugar and Soluble Protein in Cotton. Journal of Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences 42: 107-110.

Dorn, A., 1986. Effects of azadirachtin on reproductive system and egg development of the heteropteran Oncopeltus fasciatus Dallas. Z. Angew. Entomol.102, 313-319.

Dorn, A., J. M Rademacher and E. Sehn, 1987. Effects of azadirachtin on reproductive organs and fertility in the large milkweed bug, Oncopeltus fasciatus. In: Schmutterer, H. Ascher, K. R. S. (eds.). Natural Pesticides from the Neem Tree (Azadirachta indica) and other Tropical Plants.Proc. 3rd Int. Neem Conf., Nairobi, Kenya, pp. 273-288.

Eisenlohkr; L. Domangae, Lenfant C. B. Sauphanor, 1992. Effects of NeemAzal-F on aphids and beneficial insects in peach orchards in France. In: Proc. 1st Worksh. Practice Oriented Results on Use and Production of Neem-Ingredients. Ed. by KLEEBERHG,. Giessen: Druck & Graphic, 2740. El-Dewy, M.H.E, 2006. Toxicological studies on some pests attacking cotton. Ph.

D. Thesis, Fac. Agric., Kafr El-Sheikh Univ., Egypt, 101 pp.

El-Naggar, J. B and N. E.H. A Zidan, 2013. Field evaluation of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam against sucking insects and their side effects on soil fauna.Journal of Plant Protection Research, 53(4), 375-387.

El-Wakeil, N., A. Sallam, C. Volkmar, and N. Gaafar, 2013. Side effects of insecticides on natural enemies and possibility of their integration in plant protection strategies.INTECH Open Access Publisher.

(48)

40

Elzen, G. W., 2001. Lethal and sublethal effects of insecticide residues on Orius insidiosus (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) and Geocoris punctipes (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 94(1), 55-59.

Elzen, G.W., 2001. Lethal and sublethal effects of insecticide residues on Orius insidiosus (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) and Geocoris punctipes (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 94 (1), pp.55-59.

Flechtmann, C. H. W., 1989. A caros de importaˆ ncia agricola. Nobel, Sa˜o Paulo. Gahukar, R. T., 1996. Formulations of neembased products/pesticides. Pestology,

20 (9), 44-55.

Geraldo, A. C., R. R Paulo, C. D. R. Luiz, C.M Jair, C. F Loriney and C. F Carvalho, 2003. Sideeffectsof insecticides used in tomato fields on Trichogramma pretiosum (Hymenoptera, Trichogrammatidae). Acta Sci Agro Maringá 25:275-279.

Gerson, U., 1992. Biology and control of the broad mite, Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) (Acari: Tarsonemidae). Exp. Appl. Acarol. 13, 163–178. 20-Pen˜ a, J.E., Bullock, R.C., 1994. Effects of feeding of broad mite (Acari: Tarsonemidae) on vegetative plant growth. Fla. Entomol. 77, 180–184. Gill, J. S and C. T Lewis, 1971. Systemic action of an insect feeding

deterrent.Nature 232pp 402-403.

Godfrey, L. D. and K. J. Fuson, 2001. Environmental and Host Plant Effects on Insecticide Susceptibility of the Cotton Aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae). The Journal of Cotton Science 5:22-29.

Gonzalez R. H., E. J. Buyckx and L. Brader, 1977. ‘Prospects for New Control Practices of Agricultural Pests in Developing Countries’ in ‘Natural Products and the Protection of Plants’, ed. G. B. Marini-Bettolo, Pontlficiae Academiae Scientiarium ScriptaVaria, ,41,687; (6) H.Rembold, Trans. Bose Res. Inst., 1980, 43,53; (c) W. J. Lewis, ‘Semiochemicals: Their Role with Changing Approaches to Pest Control’, Chapter 1 in ‘Semiochemicals: Their Role in Pest Control’, ed. D. A. Norlund, R. L. Jones, and W. J. Lewis, 1981, John Wiley, New York, p. 3.

(49)

41

Gonzalez-Zomora, J. E., G. M. Glardo and M. Garciam, 1997. Toxicity of different pesticides on pupa of Eretmocerus mundus Merect, parasitizing Bemisia tabaci. Proceedings of the Meeting at Terrife, Canary Island, vol. 20, pp. 114–120.

Gujar G.T. and K. N. Mehrtra, 1983. Inhibition of growth and development of tobacco caterpillar Spodoptera litura fubr. Due to Azadirachtin and other neem products, Indian J. Ent; 45: 431-435.

Gupta, M. P., S. Sandeep, S. K. Shrivastava and S. Sharma, 1997. Population buildup of some sap sucking insects on cotton in Madhya pardesh. J. insect Sci., 10: 153-156.

Haseeb, M., T. X. Liu and W. A. Jones, 2004.Effects of Selected Insecticides on Cotesia plutellae, Endoparasitoid of Plutella xylostella. BioControl;49 33-46.

Hegde, N. G., 1992. Neem production and development - constraints at grass root level. In: World Neem Conference Souvenir. ICAR, New Delhi, India. Heneberry, T.J., L.F JECH, 2001. Cotton aphid biology and honey-dew production.

University of Arizona, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Arizona Cotton Report. Disponível em.

Hori, M., K. Hiruma and L.M Riddiford, 1984.Cultivar melanization in the tobacco hornworm larva. Insect Biochemistry, 4, 267-74.

Irungu, R. W., 2007. Effects of spinosad and lambda-cyhalothrin on their targets, cabbage looper, Trichoplusia ni, and diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella, and on their non-targets, spiders, on cabbage in south Texas (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University).

(50)

42

Ishaaya I., 1987.The susceptibility of the melon aphid, Aphis gossypii to insecticides during the cotton-growing season. Pest. Biochem. Phys. 28: 155-162.

Islam Z., K. L. Heong, D. Catling, K. Kritani, 2012. Invertebrates in rice production systems: Status and trends. Background Study Paper N. 62, Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, FAO, Rome

Isman, M. B., 2006. Botanical insecticides, deterrents, and repellents in modern agriculture and an increasingly regulated world. Annu. Rev. Entomol.,51, 45-66.

Jattan, S. S., Shashikumar, G. Pujar, 1995. Perspectives in intensive management of neem plantations.Indian For, 121: 981-988.

Jenkins, D.A., F.V Dunkel and K.T Gamby, 2003. Storage temperature of Neem kernels extract: Differential effects on oviposition and larval toxicityof Callosbruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Environ. Ent., 32: 1283-1289.

Kannan, M., S. Uthamasamy and S. Mohan, 2004. Impact of insecticides on sucking pests and natural enemy complex of transgenic cotton. Current science, 86 (5), pp.726-729.

Karnavar, G. K., 1987. Influence of azadirachtin on insect nutrition and reproduction: Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences, Animal Sciences 96, 341-347.

Khadi, U. B. Zehr(ed.), 2010. Cotton, Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry 65, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-04796-1_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Khalil, M. S., 2013. Abamectin and Azadirachtin as Eco-friendly Promising Biorational Tools in Integrated Nematodes Management Programs. Journal of Plant Pathology & Microbiology.