JOURNAL OF APPLIED ZOOLOGICAL RESEARCHES 87

J. Appl. Zool. Res. (2013)24(1): 87-94

MANAGEMENT OF GALL WASP, LEPTOCYBE INVASA (FISHER AND SALLE) IN EUCALYPTUS UNDER NURSERY CONDITION

SANGODE EKTA S., JADEJA D.B. AND SUSHIL KUMAR

Department of Forestry, ASPEE College of Horticulture & Forestry, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari-396 450 (Gujarat) Email: saxenasushil2003@rediffmail.com

ABSTRACT: Eucalyptus gall wasp Leptocybe invasa (Fisher and Salle, 2004) (Hymenoptera:

Eulophidae) is the latest invasive pest in Eucalyptus plantations and nurseries of Gujarat. Nursery plants are more prone than the plantations. To evaluate a suitable control of the pest, an experiment based on pest management was laid out in Eucalyptus nursery of Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, Gujarat in 2009-10. The experiment was conducted in Completely Randomized Design with two treatments viz; treated and untreated replicated twelve times. The results revealed that before imposition of treatments and up to 15 days after spraying (DAS), no significant difference was observed in both the sets with respect to seedling and leaflet damage, gall intensity, location and shape of galls. At 90 DAS, seedling mortality in treated plot (soil treatment of chlorpyriphos @ 0.05 %, foliar spray of imidacloprid 0.005 % after 7 days of soil treatment, monocrotophos 0.05 % after 21days of 1

st foliar spray and DDVP 0.05 % after 15 days of 2

nd foliar

spray) was 3.33 per cent as compared to 100 per cent in untreated set (no insecticide application). Similarly, leaflet damage was 10.57 and 39.27 per cent in treated and untreated sets at 60 DAS, respectively which later reduced to almost zero in treated seedlings from 75 to 105 DAS. In untreated seedlings, galls spread from leaf midrib to leaf petiole, whereas in treated seedlings; they were congregated on leaf midrib only. Similarly, in treated seedlings, gall maturity (swelling) was not observed while in untreated seedlings, galls became fully mature showing pink colour at 90 DAS. The per cent avoidable crop loss was 59.33 per cent in the treated seedlings. So, application of various insecticides had appreciable and significant impact on control of gall wasp oriented damage.

Key words: Leptocybe invasa, insecticides, seedlings and Gall

INTRODUCTION

Eucalyptus is a hardy species but altogether, about 920 species of insects have been recorded on eucalyptus worldwide (WYLIE and FLOYD, 2002), including over 40 lepidopteran species of Geometridae, Lasiocampidae, Lymantriidae, Noctuidae families (SEN-SARMA and THAKUR, 1983). Recently, severe attack by a new invasive pest gall insect has been identified as blue gum chalcid, Leptocybe invasa Fisher & LaSalle, (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) in India. Presumed to have originated from Australia, its attack was observed in nurseries, coppiced shoots and young plantations. In India, it has been reported from planted forests and nurseries of Eucalyptus camaldulensis and E. tereticornis (JACOB et al., 2007). The affected seedlings show stunted growth and become unsuitable for planting (MENDEL et al., 2004). The practice of raising nursery for planting new areas coupled with coppicing provides large amounts of young leaf and shoots which is suitable for L. invasa infestation. It is a tiny wasp that forms bump shaped galls on young shoot terminals, leaf midribs, petioles and stems of eucalyptus seedlings and in 6-8 month-old saplings in plantations. The female wasp lays eggs in the bark of shoots or midribs of leaves. Damage is caused when the developing larvae produces galls on the leaf midribs, petioles and twigs. In mature trees, the galls occurred only on leaf midribs. Eucalyptus trees up to two years of age are found more prone to the pest. Heavy infestation of the wasp results in loss of vigour and growth retardation in

88 JOURNAL OF APPLIED ZOOLOGICAL RESEARCHES seedlings. The galls can cause the twigs to split, destroying the cambium. Small circular holes indicating exit points of adults are common on the galls. Severely attacked trees show gnarled appearance, stunted growth, lodging, dieback and eventually tree death (MENDEL et al., 2004).

In India, it was first noticed in 2001 in Mandya district of Karnataka and later at

Marakkanam in Villupuram district, Tamil Nadu and its outbreak was first reported in 2007 (ANONYMOUS, 2007). Its distribution was found in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. It has also been reported from Gujarat (KUMAR et al., 2007) and Madhya Pradesh (ROYCHOUDHURY et al., 2007). In Gujarat, infestation of this new pest is recorded in south Gujarat (Valsad & Navsari districts) and in Central Gujarat (Godhra & Vadodara districts) during the last 2-3 years. This pest has already damaged about 25 lakh Eucalyptus seedlings in Central Gujarat and spreading to newer areas (JHALA et al., 2009). There is a need to have long term strategies to combat this severe pest and to prevent its spread in the other areas of Gujarat. Therefore, we evaluated insecticides against L. invasa.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The present investigation was carried out under nursery condition in Green house complex of ASPEE College of Horticulture and Forestry, Navsari during November-April 2009-2010. The site was located at 20°-57´N latitude, 72°-54´E longitude and at an elevation of 10 m above mean sea level. The seedlings were raised in plastic bag of 6-10” size filled with potting mixture of soil and sand (1:1). The experiment was conducted in Completely Randomized Design with two treatments viz; treated and untreated replicated twelve times. In treated seedlings, the soil treatment of chlorpyriphos @ 0.05 % was given along with foliar sprays of imidacloprid 0.005 % (after 7 days of soil treatment), monocrotophos 0.05 % (after 21days of 1

st foliar spray) and DDVP 0.05 %

(after 15 days of 2nd

foliar spray), whereas in the untreated set, no insecticide application was given. Pre and post treatment observations based on total healthy and damaged seedlings were made on each plant. Pest incidence was calculated using formula as:

Pest incidence (%) =

No. of affected seedlings____

X 100 Total no. of seedlings observed

Thereafter on each damaged leaf, gall intensity was observed on the basis of gall count in one inch length in the affected area. Type of gall formation viz., swelling, gall formation and appearance of exit hole was also observed along with their location i.e. midrib, leaf petiole, shoot or twig. Numerical rating for type of gall was denoted as 1 (0-1.0), 2 (1.1-2.0) for mature gall and 3 (>2.0) for gall with exit hole. Similarly, numerical rating for location of gall was denoted as 1 (0-1.0) for gall count on midrib, 2 (1.1-2.0) for petiole and 3 (>2.0) for shoot or stem. The data based on different characters were analyzed in completely randomized design. On the basis of pest incidence in treated and untreated plot, the per cent survival and avoidable crop loss was also assessed.

Avoidable economic loss (%) =

% Damage in - % Damage in

treated plot untreated plot X 100

% Damage in treated plot

JOURNAL OF APPLIED ZOOLOGICAL RESEARCHES 89

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Eucalyptus gall insect Leptocybe invasa Fisher and La Salle damage was recorded at 15 days interval during October 2009 - March 2010. The results obtained in treated and untreated plots with respect to gall intensity, incidence, location of gall and type of gall have been discussed as under: (a) Gall intensity: Before spray, the number of fresh galls ranged from 0.29-0.50/linear inch on infested leaves in treated and untreated plots however, it did not differ significantly in these plots. Similarly at 15 DAS, the gall intensities in both the plots were at par with each other. From 30 to 90 DAS, the gall intensity decreased steadily in treated plot ranging from 0.38 to 0.02/inch. From 105 DAS to the last observation (140 DAS), treated plot did not record any incidence indicating zero gall intensity. However in untreated plot, gall intensity increased steadily from 0.88 to 2.03/inch on infested leaves. In pooled results (irrespective of post spray interval), it was significantly low (0.14) in treated plot over the control (1.47) (Table-1). (b) Incidence on seedling basis: The data obtained on infested seedlings out of total observed seedlings were converted into per cent incidence in treated as well as in untreated plots (Table 1). The pre-treatment result indicated significant difference between treated (20.00 %) and untreated (36.66) plots. After spray at 15 DAS, both the treatments were at par with each other whereas at 30 DAS, pest incidence in treated plot decreased to 35.00% as against 43.33% in untreated control. At 45 DAS, it again showed increasing trend indicating 38.33 & 70.0% in treated & untreated plots, respectively. From 60 to 90 DAS, incidence in treated plot decreased to 25.00-3.33%. While in untreated plot at 60 DAS, incidence was 65.0%. At 75 and 90 DAS; the pest incidence rose to 100% in untreated plot (Table 1). In pooled analysis, pest incidence in treated plot (25.55%) was significantly low as compared to the untreated plot (69.72), while interaction between treatment and different periods of observation was significant indicating variation in results (Table-1). (c) Incidence on leaflet basis: The results based on total number of leaves and infested leaves were converted into per cent incidence on leaf basis. The pre-treatment results showed significant difference among treated and untreated plots i.e. 13.85 and 5.74%, respectively. At 15 DAS, the infestation was also statistically similar in both the plots. At 30 DAS, it was found low (39.28 %) in treated plot as compared to 48.85 per cent in untreated plot. From 30 to 60 DAS, the infestation showed decreasing trend in treated plot i.e. 39.28 to 10.57%, respectively, while in untreated plot, it showed increasing trend of leaf damage (48.85 to 69.62 %). From 75 to 135 DAS, no leaf damage was observed in treated plot while in untreated plot, it rose from 81.09 to 95.09%. In pooled result, it was significantly low in treated plot (8.49 %) as compared to the untreated plot (74.23%).The interaction between treatment and period was found significant (Table- 2).

(d) Location of gall: The bumped shaped galls were found on leaf midrib, petiole and shoot or shoots of new growth. The results were based on numerical rating of 0.1 to 1 categorized as location 1 (midrib), 1.1 to 2 as location 2 (petiole) and 2.1 to 3 as location 3 (shoot or stem). The pre-treatment data showed that initially galls were located on petiole in both treated and untreated plots with ratings of 1.17 and 1.25, respectively. At 15 and 30 DAS, no variation with respect to location was observed in both the plots. At

90 JOURNAL OF APPLIED ZOOLOGICAL RESEARCHES 60 DAS, the location in treated plot shifted to the leaf midrib (0.58), while in untreated plot it remained high (1.92). From 60 to 90 DAS in treated plot, the galls disappeared indicating only symptoms of swelling. In contrast in untreated plot at 60 and 75 DAS, the symptoms of gall formation were observed on twig (1.92) and at 90 DAS, the galls on twigs appeared with little leaf symptoms as well as galls on shoot, showing stunted growth (2.1). In pooled result, more galls were located on petiole with rating of 1.75 in untreated plot, while there was disappearance of gall symptoms in treated plots with rating of 0.81. Interaction between treatment and period was found significant (Table-2). (e) Type of gall: The galls observed on eucalyptus were classified and categorized as: swelling and green coloured, numerically rated as 0.1 to 1, mature gall as 1.1 to 2 and gall with exit hole as > 2. The pre-treatment results indicated non-significant difference in both the plots with respect to swelling symptoms i.e. (0.92 and 0.83). At 15, 30 and 45 DAS, swelling was prominent in both the plots. From 60 to 90 DAS, there was disappearance of galls type symptoms in treated plot while in untreated plot at 60 and 75 DAS; the mature gall appeared with pinkish red colour. At 90 DAS in untreated plot, the galls appeared with exit hole & were rated as 2.2 (Table 3). Pooled results showed disappearing symptoms of gall in treated plot while mature galls were prominent in contro plot. Treatment and period interaction was found significant (Table-3). Thus, on the basis of gall intensity, leaf incidence; it is evident that the gall damage was significantly lower in treated plots as compared to control plots. In treated plots, galls appeared on leaf midrib, while they were located on petiole in the untreated plot. Similarly, in treated plots, galls were not developed resembling a swelling type, while they were fully mature in control plot.

(f) Avoidable crop loss: The per cent survival of Eucalyptus seedlings in treated plot was 74.45%, whereas in untreated plot, it was 30.28%. The avoidable crop loss on survival basis over control in nursery seedlings was 59.33% (Table-4). (g) Impact of methods of insecticide application

i. Soil application of insecticides

Before application of insecticides (pre-treatment), the incidence on seedling was found significant (20.00 & 36.67% in treated and untreated plots, respectively), thereafter; it reached to the level of 43.33 and 40.00% in respective plots at 15 DAS where they did not differ significantly. So, the treatments were not effective up to 15 DAS, resulting in increase of pest incidence in treated plants to more than double to the pre-treatment level. This could be due to no direct effect of soil application of chlorpyriphos on reduction of pest incidence. The per cent incidence on leaflet basis under nursery condition in the pre-treatment observations was 13.85 and 5.74% in treated and untreated plants, respectively. So, it is evident that soil application was effective indicating superiority of treated plants over untreated in pre-foliar treatment observations. At 15 DAS, it was found at par with each other (19.53 and (24.64 % in respective sets). It was evident that gall wasp incidence in new growth was reduced or checked significantly in treated plants over the untreated plants. These findings are supported by PARIHAR (1994) who reported that population of gall makers increases with vegetative growth of trees. Meshram et al. (2003) reported soil application of phorate followed by carbofuran @ 10 gm per plant (3 yrs old) most

JOURNAL OF APPLIED ZOOLOGICAL RESEARCHES 91

effective against gall forming insect Betousa stylophora on Aonla. The findings based on soil application are supported by Charlma PHILIPS (2007) wherein soil application of chlorpyriphos at the rate of 15 g per seedlings was found to control insect-pests of eucalyptus plantations. Committee of ANONYMOUS (2007) workers suggested application of granular and foliar insecticides coupled with root application of chlorpyriphos 20 EC to contain gall wasp in nursery. SHARMA (2008) reported significantly higher (91-100%) reduction of nymphal Citrus Psylla using chlorpyriphos (0.1%). KULKARNI (2010) suggested root feeding of plants with profenophos (0.03%) for reducing the number of galls. In pre-treatment observations of nursery seedlings, the galls were located on petiole indicating swelling and mature type in respective plots. Similar observations were noticed up to 30 DAS. Thus present available data showed that soil application of chlorpyriphos had a more or less limited effect on galls as it did not have any direct effect on location and shaping of gall.

(ii) Foliar application of insecticides Gall intensity under nursery condition from 30 to 90 DAS indicated a continuous decreasing trend of gall population in treated plants reaching to 0 levels during 105 - 150 DAS whereas in untreated plot, an increasing trend was noticed indicating highest gall intensity of 2.03 galls/inch galls at 150 DAS in the untreated plants. These findings showed a positive effect of foliar spray to contain the gall problem. Pest incidence on seedling basis in nursery at each DAS was low in treated plants as compared to untreated plants. From 60 DAS, it was significantly low (25.00-3.33 %) in treated plants as compared to the untreated (65.00-100.00) plants. This proves effectiveness of foliar technique in the treated module over the untreated plots. So, it can be said that in nursery seedlings, foliar sprays were found superior over the untreated control plants. MESHRAM et al. (2003) suggested monocrotophos (0.05 and 0.030 %) for reducing the incidence and gall population of gall insect of Aonla. JHALA et al. (2009) reported 6-8 month old saplings more susceptible to Leptocybe invasa. THU et al. (2009) also recorded maximum per cent damage and damage index of Leptocybe invasa in E. grandis, E. tereticornis. GOUD et al. (2010) noticed higher incidence of gall wasp in E. tereticornis in all stages of growth. In nursery stage, from 30 to 60 DAS, the per cent incidence on leaflet basis indicated a decreasing trend in treated plot, while it was increasing in the untreated plot. From 75 to 135 DAS, the leaf damage was 0.00% in treated while in untreated set, it rose up to 95.09% confirming foliar spray to check the problem of gall wasp. The findings of the present investigation are more or less similar to that of SINGH and MISHRA (1978) who reported effectiveness of monocrotophos (0.04 %) against mango shoot gall psylla. RAO et al. (1980) recommended application of monocrotophos (0.05 %). SRIVASTAVA et al. (1982) supported application of monocrotophos (0.05 %) against the same pest. PATEL et al. (1997) who in turn reported application of monocrotophos 0.036 % + quinalphos 0.050 % for the control of mango leaf gall midge. Anonymous (2007) committee suggested foliar application of insecticide at fortnightly interval. Charlma Phillips (2007) suggested imidacloprid (2.5 ml/ plant) for the control of psyllids. JACOB et al. (2007) also reported imidacloprid (0.02%) helpful to control the problem of gall insect in Eucalyptus. PHILIP et al. (2007) suggested imidacloprid highly effective against gall insect in eucalyptus. KAUL et al. (2007) suggested application of monocrotophos 36 EC (0.04 %) for suppressing psyllid population of olive. PATEL (2008) suggested application of imidacloprid (0.005%) economic and effective against mango

92 JOURNAL OF APPLIED ZOOLOGICAL RESEARCHES leaf gall midge followed by thiamethoxam and DDVP. Sharma (2008) reported noticeable nymphal reduction of citrus psylla when imidacloprid (0.008%) was used. XU et al. (2008) recommended application of imidacloprid (4 mg / kg) against Erythrina gall wasp. SHAN MUGAN et al. (2009) reported imidacloprid (0.5 ml) effective in reducing gall damage. JAVAREGOWDA et al. (2010) advocated two applications of imidacloprid (0.25 ml/l) at 30 days interval against gall under nursery condition. Table- 3: Type of galls observed under nursery condition

Treatment Numerical rating of gall type

Pre-treatm

ent

Post spray observation at Pooled

Irrespective of post spray

interval)

15

Days

30

Days

45

Days

60

Days

75

Days

90

Days

T1 (Untreated) 1.14 (0.83)

1.28 (1.0)

1.34 (1.33)

1.43 (1.58)

1.49 (1.75)

1.55 (1.92)

1.59 (2.20)

1.45 (1.58)

T2 (Treated) 1.18 (0.92)

1.22 (1.0)

1.28 (1.17)

1.28 (1.17)

1.03 (0.67)

1.01 (0.59)

0.79 (0.17)

1.10 (0.79)

S. Em. + (T) 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.04 -

S. Em . + (P) - - - - - - - 0.09

S. Em. + (T x P) - - - - - - - 0.05

CD at 5 % (T) NS NS NS 0.14 0.23 0.17 0.12 -

CD at 5 % (P) - - - - - - - 0.32

CD at 5 % (T xP)

- - - - - - - 0.15

CV (%) T 15.29 7.82 12.04 11.98 15.42 15.38 12.00 -

CV (%) P - - - - - - - 14.25

Data in the parentheses are original values of square root (√ X + 0.5) values NS= Non Significant Rating: 0.1-1: Swelling and green colour 1.1-2 : Mature gall > 2: Gall with exit hole In nursery conditions, the leaf petiole was the prominent gall location at 30 DAS in both the plots. From 60 to 90 DAS, the gall formation was not consistent in treated plants, while in untreated plants, the gall formation on twigs was noticed.At 30 DAS, the swelling of gall was evident in both the plots. At 90 DAS, gall with exit hole appeared in the untreated plot. So it is evident that foliar spray did not have any effect on location as well as type of gall formation but seemed to slow down the multiplication of gall insect. In terms of economics, treated plot had 74.45% survival against 30.28 in untreated plants. The ultimate benefit in treated module was 59.33% in nursery. Table 4: Avoidable crop loss in nursery

Treatment Damage (%)

Survival (%) out of every100 seedlings

(Estimated)

Economic benefit/100

seedlings (Rs) (Estimated)

Benefit over control (%)

Treated plot 25.55 74.45 595.60 59.33

Untreated plot 69.72 30.28 246.40 --

Price of 1 seedling = Rs.8

1

Table-1: Gall intensity of Eucalyptus gall insect under nursery conditions

Treatment Gall intensity (per inch on infested leaves)

Pre-

treatment

Post spray observation at Pooled (Irrespective of post spray

interval)

15 Days

30 Days

45 Days

60 Days

75 Days

90 Days

105 Days

120 Days

135 Days

150 Days

T1 (Untreated) 0.89 (0.29)

1.17 (0.88)

1.29 (1.18)

1.33 (1.28)

1.35 (1.35)

1.42 (1.54)

1.39 (1.51)

1.43 (1.58)

1.44 (1.63)

1.49 (1.77)

1.58 (2.03)

1.39 (1.47)

T2 (Treated) 0.99 (0.50)

1.09 (0.71)

0.93 (0.38)

0.83 (0.19)

0.77 (0.09)

0.74 (0.05)

0.72 (0.02)

0.71 (0.0)

0.71 (0.0)

0.71 (0.0)

0.71 (0.0)

0.79 (0.14)

S.Em. + (T) 0.04 0.04 0.033 0.031 0.03 0.042 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.042 0.04 -

S.Em. + (P) - - - - - - - - - - - 0.05

S.Em. + (T x P) - - - - - - - - - - - 0.04

CD at 5 % (T) NS NS 0.99 0.091 0.96 0.123 0.14 0.14 0.139 0.13 0.13 -

CD at 5 % (P) - - - - - - - - - - - 0.17

CD at 5 % (T x P) - - - - - - - - - - - 0.12

CV (%) T 14.41 12.12 10.50 10.00 10.69 13.53 15.91 15.05 15.31 13.45 13.31 -

CV (%) P - - - - - - - - - - - 13.20

Pest incidence on seedling basis under nursery condition: Pest incidence (%)

T1 (Untreated) 37.11 (36.67)

39.12 (40.00)

41.14 (43.33)

57.27 (70.00)

54.01 (65.00)

88.68 (100.0)

88.68 (100.0)

61.48 (69.72)

T2 (Treated) 25.50 (20.00)

41.14 (43.33)

36.05 (35.00)

38.16 (38.33)

29.72 (25.00)

11.81 (8.33)

5.49 (3.33)

27.06 (25.55)

S. Em. + (T) 1.99 1.39 1.49 2.12 1.95 2.66 2.01 -

S. Em . + (P) - - - - - - - 10.57

S. Em. + (T x P) - - - - - - - 1.98

CD at 5 % (T) 5.86 NS 4.36 6.22 5.73 7.79 5.89 -

CD at 5 % (P) - - - - - - - NS

CD at 5 % (T x P) - - - - - - - 5.81

CV (%) T 18.30 12.05 13.33 15.38 16.16 18.31 14.77 -

CV (%) P - - - - - - - 15.50

Data in the parentheses are original and those outside are Arcsine transformed values NS= Non Significant

2

Data in the parentheses are original and those outside are square root (√ X + 0.5) values NS= Non Significant Rating: 0.1-1: midrib 1.1-2: Petiole > 2 : Shoot or stem gall

Table-2: Leaf incidence under nursery condition

Treatment Leaf infestation (%)

Pre-treatment

Post spray observation at Pooled (Irrespective of

post spray interval)

15 Days

30 Days

45 Days

60 Days

75 Days

90 Days

105 Days

120 Days

135 Days

T1 (Untreated) 5.07 (5.74)

29.37 (24.64)

44.32 (48.85)

46.17 (52.02)

56.82 (69.62)

64.95 (81.09)

67.01 (84.05)

71.47 (89.15)

76.36 (93.57)

78.49 (95.09)

59.44 (74.23)

T2 (Treated) 12.48 (13.85)

25.61 (19.53)

38.66 (39.28)

24.12 (17.04)

18.92 (10.57)

1.28 (0.0)

1.28 (0.0)

1.28 (0.0)

1.28 (0.0)

1.28 (0.0)

12.63 (8.49)

S. Em. + (T) 2.11 1.92 1.38 1.39 1.41 1.57 1.23 1.22 1.25 1.26 -

S. Em . + (P) - - - - - - - - - - 7.05

S. Em. + (T x P) - - - - - - - - - - 1.42

CD at 5 % (T) 6.18 NS 4.04 4.09 4.12 4.60 3.61 3.58 3.65 3.69 -

CD at 5 % (P) - - - - - - - - - - 22.98

CD at 5 % (T xP) - - - - - - - - - - 3.93

CV (%) T 20.06 14.22 11.49 13.77 12.85 14.30 12.49 11.62 11.12 10.95 -

CV (%) P - - - - - - - - - - 13.64

Location of galls under nursery condition : Numerical rating of gall Locations

T1 (Untreated) 1.31 (1.25)

1.32 (1.33)

1.39 (1.50)

1.52 (1.83)

1.55 (1.92)

1.55 (1.92)

1.59 (2.1)

1.49 (1.75)

T2 (Treated) 1.27 (1.17)

1.31 (1.25)

1.31 (1.25)

1.25 (1.08)

1.01 (0.58)

0.97 (0.50)

0.79 (0.17)

1.11 (0.81)

S. Em. + (T) 0.07 0.073 0.062 0.04 0.058 0.06 0.04 -

S. Em . + (P) - - - - - - - 0.09

S. Em. + (T x P) - - - - - - - 0.06

CD at 5 % (T) NS NS NS 0.10 0.17 0.17 0.12 -

CD at 5 % (P) - - - - - - - 0.32

CD at 5 % (T xP) - - - - - - - 0.17

CV (%) T 19.21 15.98 8.80 15.78 16.25 12.00 -

CV (%) P - - - - - - - 15.05

JOURNAL OF APPLIED ZOOLOGICAL RESEARCHES 95

Thus, in the light of ongoing discussion, it is evident that treated plants in nursery showed lower gall intensity, incidence and reduced gall formation as compared to the untreated plants. Thus, effectiveness of treated module consisting of soil application of chlorpyriphos along with foliar application of monocrotophos, imidacloprid and DDVP vis-a-vis Eucalyptus gall wasp has been proved not only in terms of efficacy but also on economic basis. This is similar to that of earlier reports wherein module consisting of imidacloprid and monocrotophos has been advocated. So, the present investigation is said to be in line with those of earlier works.

REFERENCES ANONYMOUS, 2007. Karnataka: Eucalyptus facing attack from gall insect.

(http:news.oneindia.in2007/06/19). CHARLMA, P. 2007. Control of insect pests in eucalyptus plantations. Forest Health, 30: 1-4.

GOUD, B. K., KUMARI, K. N., VASTRAD, A. S., BHADRAGOUDAR, M. and KULKARNI, H. 2010. Screening of Eucalyptus genotypes against gall wasp, Leptocybe invasa Fisher and La Salle (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 23(1): 213-214.

JACOB, PRASANTH, J., DEVARAJ R. and NATRAJAN, R. 2007. Outbreak of the invasive gall inducing wasp Leptocybe invasa on Eucalyptus in India. Newsletter of the Asia pacific forest invasive species network (APFISN) 8 (2): 1-4.

JAVAREGOWDA, J., PRABHU, S.T. and PATIL R. S. 2010. Evaluation of botanicals and synthetic insecticides against Eucalyptus gall wasp, Leptocybe invasa (Eulophidae: Hymenoptera) Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 23(1): 200-202.

JHALA, R.C., CHAUHAN, N.R., PATEL, M.G. and BHARPODA, T.M., 2009. Infestation of Invasive Gall Inducer, Leptocybe invasa Fisher & La Salle (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) in nurseries of Eucalyptus in middle Gujarat, India. Insect Env., 14(4): 191-192.

KAUL, V., MALIK, G. H., SHANKAR, U. and MONOBRULLAH, M. 2007. Incidence and management of olive psylla, Euphyllura Pakistanica. Indian J. Ent.,69 (4): 331-340.

KULKARNI, H. D. 2010. Screening Eucalyptus clones against Leptocybe invasa Fisher and La Salle (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 23(1): 87-90.

KUMAR, S., SHARMA, S.K., KANT T and EMMANUEL, C.J.S.K. (2007). Emergence of gall inducing insect Leptocybe invasa (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) in Eucalyptus plantations in Gujarat, India. Indian For., 133(11): 1566-1568.

MENDEL, Z., PROTASOV, A., FISHER, N. and LA SALLE, J. 2004. The taxonomy and natural history of Leptocybe invasa (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) gen & sp. nov., an invasive gall inducer on Eucalyptus. Australian Journal of Entomology, 43: 101–113.

MESHRAM, P.B.; PATRA, A. K. and GARG, V. K. 2003. Seasonal history and chemical control of gall forming insect Betousa stylophora Swinh. (Lepidoptera: Thyrididae) on Emblica officinalis Gae. Indian For., 129: 1249-1256.

PARIHAR, D. R. 1994. Galls and gall makers in Khejri (Prosopis cineraria Linn. Druce) of Arid zone of India. Annals of Arid Zone., 33 (4): 313-317.

PATEL, A. T. 2008. Seasonal incidence, varietal screening and chemical control of mango leaf gall midge, Procontarinia matteiana Kieffer & Cecconi, Master’s thesis submitted to NAU,

Navsari, Gujarat (Unpublished.). PATEL, M. G.; PATEL, J. R. and JAYANI, D. B. 1997. Bioefficacy of insecticides for controlling

Procontarinia matteiana. Indian J. of Agric. Sci., 67(10): 490-491.

PHILIP, N., ESTON, K. M. and DAY, R. K. 2007. Farmers knowledge, perceptions and management of the gall forming wasp, Leptocybe invasa (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), on Eucalyptus species in Uganda. Intn. J. of Pest Mgt., 53 (2):111-119.

RAO, V. N., REDDY, S. P., PRASADA, V. L. and RAO, V. 1980. Galls on mango leaves. Intensive Agric., 18: 20.

ROYCHOUDHURY, N., CHANDRA, S. and JOSHI, K.C. 2007. Infestation of Australian insect, Leptocybe invasa on Eucalyptus in Madhya Pradesh. Vaniki-Sandesh, 31(3): 13-15.

SEN-SARMA P. K. and THAKUR, M. L. 1983. Insect Pests of Eucalyptus and their control. Indian Forester, 109 :864-881.

96 JOURNAL OF APPLIED ZOOLOGICAL RESEARCHES SHANMUGAM, P. S., SEENIVASAN, R., PRASATH, V. and CHEHZIAN, P. 2009. IV National

Forestry Conference, F.R.I., Dehradun. pp 137. SHARMA, D. R. 2008. Population dynamics in relation to abiotic factors and management of citrus

psylla in Punjab. Indian J. Hort., 65 (4): 417-422.

SINGH, G. and MISHRA, P. N. 1978. The mango shoot gall psyllids of Apsylla cistellata (Buckton) and its control. Pesticides, 12 (9):15-16.

SRIVASTAVA R. P., FASIH, M. and ABRAHAM V. 1982. Evaluation of insecticide for the control of mango shoot gall psylla, Apsylla cistellata (Buckton) (Psyllidae: Homoptera). Entomon, 7(3):281-284.

THU, P. Q., DELL, B. and BURGESS, T. I. 2009. Susceptibility of 18 eucalypt species to the gall wasp Leptocybe invasa in nursery and young plantations in Vietnam. Science Asia, 35:

113-117. WYLIE, F. R. and FLOYD, R. B.2002. The insect threat to eucalypt plantations in tropical areas of

Australia and Asia. In : Pest Management in Tropical Forest Plantations ed. C. Hutacharern, B. Napompeth, G. Allard and F. R. Wylie. Bangkok: FAO Forestry Research Support Programme for Asia and the Pacific, pp 11-17.

XU, T., JACOBSEN, C. M., CHO, K., HARA, A. H. and LI, Q. X. 2008. Efficacy of systemic insecticides on the gall wasp Quadrastichus erythrinae in Wiliwili trees (Erythrina spp.). Pest Management Science, 65 (2): 163-169.