1 Introduction

Gherkin (Cucumis anguria L.) is popularly known as pickling cucumber or small cucumber. It is basically used for making quality oriented edible pickle mainly used for table purpose. Since there is a growing worldwide demand for pickled gherkins, more and more food companies have started to explore opportunities for producing gherkins. However, many challenges have to be overcome mainly good agricultural practices including insect pest management strategies. Many insect pests (white fly, thrips, aphids, serpentine leaf miner, fruit fly, red pumpkin beetle and fruit borers) are known to attack this crop. Since the fruits are edible, safe insecticides need to be used for pest management in this crop. Very recently, two insecticides acting on insect ryanodine receptors (RyRs) in insect muscle cells (IRAC mode of action classification, group 28) (IRAC, 2017), namely, flubendiamide (phthalic acid diamide) and chlorantraniliprole (anthranilic diamide) are being used for the control of lepidopteran pests, especially, Helicoverpa armingera Hub. and Spodoptera litura Fab. Masanori et al. (2005) reported that flubendiamide is highly effective against lepidopteran insects. Flubendiamide is a new chemical option for control of multi-resistant noctuid pests and an excellent choice in resistant management strategies for lepidopteran pests in general (Nauen et al., 2007). Similarly, Tang Zhen Hua and Tao Li Ming (2008) reported that flubendiamide was a diamide insecticide have a unique chemical structure and a novel mode of action and show excellent efficacy, a broad insecticidal spectrum against lepidopteran insect pests, excellent safety against various beneficial arthropods and natural enemies, and no cross-resistance to existing insecticides and very suitable for insecticide resistance management and IPM programmes. Tohinshi et al. (2005) concluded that flubendiamide was the first example of 1,2-benzenedicarboxamide insecticides but also the first practical synthetic insecticide with a mode of action as an activator of ryanodine receptors. It shows high and selective activity against lepidopteran insect pests, which leads to excellent efficacy in the field, and excellent safety against non-target organisms, including various beneficial arthropods and natural enemies. These properties suggested the suitability of flubendiamide for integrated pest management (IPM) programs. Therefore, in the present field experiment a novel phthalic acid diamide insecticide flubendiamide having novel mode of action has been evaluated against pumpkin caterpillar or gherkin fruit borer, Diaphania indica (Saunders).

2 Materials and Methods

Bio-efficacy trials

The field experiments were carried out for two consecutive rabi/summer seasons of 2009-10 and 2010-11 in the farmer’s fields in Kalaghatagi village in Dharwad district, Karnataka, India with seven treatments replicated thrice in a randomised block design (RBD). The treatments consisted of 1) Flubendiamide 480 SC @ 24 g a.i./ha, 2) Flubendiamide 480 SC @ 36 g a.i./ha, 3) Flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g a.i./ha, 4) Flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha, 5) Indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha, 6) Lambda Cyhalothrin 5 EC @ 18.75 g a.i./ha, and 7) Untreated check. The spacing followed was 100 x 30 and 100 x 45 cm with Anaxo and Shakti varieties in a plot size of 6.0 x 5.1 m and 8.0 x 6.0 m during first and second season, respectively. The planting was taken up during last week of December in medium red soils during both the seasons. Fifteen irrigations were provided to the crop during the cropping season in both the years.

The insecticides were sprayed three times starting from 30 days after planting at 10 days interval with knapsack sprayer fitted with hollow cone nozzle using spray volume of 500 litres per hectare. The insecticidal efficacy was assessed by recording the number of fruit borer larvae per meter row length as pre-count at one day before application and post-treatment counts at 5 and 10 days after each application. Healthy and damaged fruits were recorded on randomly selected five tagged plans and per cent damaged fruits at 5 and 10 days after second and third application was computed. Similarly, number of coccinellid beetles were also recorded from the five tagged plants in each treatment at one day before first spray as pre-treatment count and on 5 and 10 days after each application as post-treatment counts. The observation recorded on 10^th day after first spray and second sprays served as pre-treatment count for second and third sprays, respectively. The fruit yield was harvested separately and fruit yield per hectare was computed based on six pickings.

Phytotoxicity trials

The field experiments were carried out for two consecutive rabi/summer seasons of 2009-10 and 2010-11 in the farmer’s fields in Kalaghatagi village in Dharwad district, Karnataka, India with four treatments replicated thrice in RBD. The treatments consisted of 1) Flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha, 2)  Flubendiamide 480 SC @ 120 g a.i./ha, 3) Flubendiamide 480 SC @ 240 g a.i./ha, and 4) Untreated check (Water spray). The spacing followed was 100 x 30 and 100 x 45 cm with Anaxo and Shakti varieties in a plot size of 6.0 x 5.1 m and 8.0 x 6.0 m during first and second season, respectively. The planting was taken up during last week of December in medium red soils during both the seasons. Fifteen irrigations were provided to the crop during the cropping season in both the years.

One spray was taken up at 45 days after planting with knap sack sprayer using 500 litres of water per hectare. The observations on phytotoxicity symptoms (viz., leaf chlorosis & leaf tip burning, leaf necrosis, leaf epinasty, leaf hyponasty, vein clearing, wilting and rosetting) were recorded on 1, 3, 7, 10 and 15 days after spray by using the following score.

3 Results

3.1 Number of gherkin fruit borer (Diaphania indica) larvae per meter row length

3.1.1 First season

At one day before spray the number of fruit borer larvae varied from 11.5 to 13.4 per meter row length among the various insecticides tested without any significant differences (Table 1).

At 5 days after first spray lowest number of larvae was observed in flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha (3.3/ meter row length) which was on par with indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha (3.4 larvae/ meter row length) and these two treatments were significantly superior to rest of the insecticidal treatments. The next best treatments included flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g a.i./ha, flubendiamide 480 SC @ 36 g a.i./ha and lambda cyhalothrin 5 EC @ 18.75 g a.i./ha which recorded 5.9, 6.2 and 7.3 larvae per meter row length, respectively and were on par with each other. The least effective treatment was flubendiamide 480 SC @ 24 g a.i./ha which recorded highest number of larvae (8.5/ meter row length) and was significantly superior over untreated check (14.2/ meter row length).

At 10 days after first spray, there was a slight increase the larval population. However, the trend remained same as above. The lowest number of larvae was recorded in flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha (6.3/ meter row length) which was on par with indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha (6.5 larvae/ meter row length) and these two treatments were significantly superior over rest of the insecticidal treatments. The next best treatments included flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g a.i./ha and flubendiamide 480 SC @ 36 g a.i./ha (8.2 and 9.3 larvae/ meter row length, respectively) and were on par with each other. The least effective treatments were flubendiamide 480 SC @ 24 g a.i./ha and lambda cyhalothrin 5 EC @ 18.75 g a.i./ha which recorded highest number of larvae (11.4 and 10.5/ meter row length, respectively) and were significantly superior over untreated check (15.3 larvae/ meter row length).

At 5 and 10 days after second spray also flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha (3.2 and 4.5 larvae/ meter row length, respectively) and indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha (3.4 and 4.7 larvae/meter row length, respectively) maintained their effectiveness against fruit borer and were significantly superior over rest of the insecticidal treatments.

At 5 days after third spray flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha (1.2 larvae/ meter row length) and indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha (1.3 larvae/ meter row length) were equally effective against fruit borer and were significantly superior over rest of the insecticidal treatments. The next best treatments included flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g a.i./ha, lambda cyhalothrin 5 EC @ 18.75 g a.i./ha, flubendiamide 480 SC @ 36 g a.i./ha and flubendiamide 480 SC @ 24 g a.i./ha with 3.5, 3.7, 4.3 and 5.4 larvae per meter row length, respectively and were on par with each other (Table 1).

At 10 days after third spray also flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha (0.4 larvae/ meter row length) and indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha (0.5 larvae/ meter row length) were equally effective against fruit borer and were significantly superior over rest of the insecticidal treatments. The next best treatment included flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g a.i./ha (1.2 larvae/ meter row) which was significantly superior over flubendiamide 480 SC @ 36 g a.i./ha, flubendiamide 480 SC @ 24 g a.i./ha and lambda cyhalothrin 5 EC @ 18.75 g a.i./ha with 2.1, 3.4 and 3.5 larvae per meter row length, respectively (Table 1).

3.1.2 Second season

The number of gherkin fruit borer larvae varied from 13.2 to 15.2 per meter row length among the various insecticides tested without any significant differences at one day before imposition of treatments (Table 2).

At 5 days after first spray lowest number of larvae (5.3 / meter row length) was recorded in flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha which was on par with indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha (5.5 larvae/ meter row length) and these two treatments were significantly superior over rest of the insecticidal treatments. The next best treatments in this respect included flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g a.i./ha, flubendiamide 480 SC @ 36 g a.i./ha and lambda cyhalothrin 5 EC @ 18.75 g a.i./ha which recorded 7.8, 9.4 and 9.7 larvae per meter row length, respectively and were equally effective. Flubendiamide 480 SC @ 24 g a.i./ha which recorded highest number of larvae (10.3/ meter row length) was least effective treatment and was significantly superior over untreated check (15.1 larvae/ meter row length).

There was a slight increase the larval population at 10 days after first spray. However, the efficacy trend remained same as above. The lowest number of larvae was noticed in flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha (7.1/ meter row length) which was significantly superior over rest of the insecticidal treatments except indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha (7.5 larvae/ meter row length). The next best treatments included flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g a.i./ha and flubendiamide 480 SC @ 36 g a.i./ha (9.3 and 11.4 larvae/ meter row length, respectively) and were on par with each other. The least effective treatments were flubendiamide 480 SC @ 24 g a.i./ha and lambda cyhalothrin 5 EC @ 18.75 g a.i./ha which recorded highest number of larvae (12.2 and 11.6/ meter row length, respectively) but were significantly superior over untreated check (15.8/ meter row length).

At 5 and 10 days after second spray also flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha (3.8 and 4.9 larvae/ meter row length, respectively) and indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha (3.9 and 5.0 larvae/ meter row length, respectively) maintained their effectiveness against fruit borer and were significantly superior over rest of the insecticidal treatments.

At 5 days after third spray flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha (1.7 larvae/ meter row length) and indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha (1.8 larvae/ meter row length) were equally effective against fruit borer and were significantly superior over rest of the insecticidal treatments. The next best treatments was flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g a.i./ha with 3.4 larvae per meter row length (Table 2).

At 10 days after third spray flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha (0.7 larvae/ meter row length) and indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha (0.8 larvae/ meter row length) were highly effective against fruit borer and were significantly superior over rest of the insecticidal treatments. The next best treatment was flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g a.i./ha (1.8 larvae/ meter row) which was significantly superior over flubendiamide 480 SC @ 36 g a.i./ha, flubendiamide 480 SC @ 24 g a.i./ha and lambda cyhalothrin 5 EC @ 18.75 g a.i./ha with 3.4, 4.3 and 4.8 larvae per meter row length, respectively (Table 2).

3.2 Fruit damage due to gherkin fruit borer, Diaphania indica and effect on yield

3.2.1 First season

Efficacy

At one day before second spray (i.e. 10 days after first spray), flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha recorded lowest fruit damage in (16.4%) and was significantly superior over rest of the treatments except indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha (17.5%) (Table 3).

At 5 and 10 days after second spray, flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha with 11.3 and 10.7 per cent fruit damage, respectively was highly effective against fruit borer and was significantly superior over rest of the insecticidal treatments except indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha with 12.4 and 11.5 per cent fruit damage, respectively (Table 3).

At 5 days after third spray also, flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha with 6.2 per cent fruit damage was highly effective against fruit borer and was significantly superior over rest of the insecticidal treatments except indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha with 6.7 per cent fruit damage. The next best treatments included flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g a.i./ha and flubendiamide 480 SC @ 36 g a.i./ha and were on par with each other. The least effective treatments were flubendiamide 480 SC @ 24 g a.i./ha and lambda cyhalothrin 5 EC @ 18.75 g a.i./ha which recorded highest fruit damage (14.3 and 15.2%, respectively) and were significantly superior over untreated check (34.0%) (Table 3).

At 10 days after third spray, flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha with 3.1 per cent fruit damage was highly effective against fruit borer and was significantly superior over rest of the insecticidal treatments except indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha with 3.4 per cent fruit damage. The next best treatments included flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g a.i./ha (5.4%) and flubendiamide 480 SC @ 36 g a.i./ha (6.7%) and were on par with each other. The least effective treatments were flubendiamide 480 SC @ 24 g a.i./ha (8.3%) and lambda cyhalothrin 5 EC @ 18.75 g a.i./ha (8.4%) which recorded highest fruit damage and were significantly superior over untreated check (Table 3).

Overall efficacy and effect on fruit yield

Three sprays of flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha afforded highest protection against fruit borer with 91.3 per cent followed by indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha and flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g a.i./ha with 90.5 and 84.9 per cent, respectively over untreated check (Table 3).

All the insecticides recorded significantly higher marketable fruit yield than untreated check. Three sprays of flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha produced significantly higher marketable fruit yield of 10.45 t/ha followed by indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha (10.24 t/ha) and were significantly superior over rest of the insecticidal treatments (Table 3).

3.2.2 Second season

Efficacy

At one day before second spray (i.e. 10 days after first spray), flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha recorded lowest fruit damage (18.5%) and was significantly superior over rest of the treatments except indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha (19.1%) (Table 4).

At 5 and 10 days after second spray, flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha with 12.2 and 11.3 per cent fruit damage, respectively was highly effective against fruit borer and was significantly superior over rest of the insecticidal treatments except indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha with 13.5 and 12.4  per cent fruit damage, respectively.

At 5 days after third spray also, flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha with 8.7 per cent fruit damage was highly effective against fruit borer and was significantly superior over rest of the insecticidal treatments except indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha with 9.2 per cent fruit damage. The next best treatments included flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g a.i./ha with 10.4  per cent fruit damage and was significantly superior to flubendiamide 480 SC @ 36 g a.i./ha, flubendiamide 480 SC @ 24 g a.i./ha and lambda cyhalothrin 5 EC @ 18.75 g a.i./ha (Table 4).

At 10 days after third spray, flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha with 4.0 per cent fruit damage was highly effective against fruit borer and was significantly superior over rest of the insecticidal treatments except indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha with 4.8 per cent fruit damage. The next effective treatments included flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g a.i./ha (6.2%) and flubendiamide 480 SC @ 36 g a.i./ha (7.3%) and were on par with each other. The least effective treatments were flubendiamide 480 SC @ 24 g a.i./ha (9.5%) and lambda cyhalothrin 5 EC @ 18.75 g a.i./ha (9.2%) which recorded highest fruit damage but were significantly superior over untreated check (36.8%) (Table 4).

Overall efficacy and effect on fruit yield

Three sprays of flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha afforded highest protection against fruit borer with 89.1 per cent followed by indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha and  flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g a.i./ha with 87.3 and 83.2 per cent, respectively over untreated check (Table 4).

All the insecticides recorded significantly higher marketable fruit yield than untreated check. Three sprays of flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha produced significantly higher marketable fruit yield of 9.65 t/ha followed by indoxacarb 14.5 SL @ 21.75 g a.i./ha (9.52 t/ha) and were significantly superior over rest of the insecticidal treatments (Table 4).

Effect of insecticides on natural enemies

The data on effect of insecticides on natural enemies are presented in Table 5 and Table 6. The coccinellid beetles varied from 1.70 to 1.90 and 1.62 to 1.94 per plant at one day before imposition of treatments during first and second season, respectively. Even though there was slight decrease in population of coccinellid beetles after sprays, the population did not vary among various insecticidal treatments at five and ten days after first, second and third sprays during both the seasons.

Phytotoxicity

The data pertaining to phytotoxicity are presented in Table 7. None of the insecticidal treatments showed any type of phytotoxic symptoms on gherkin plants at one, three, seven ten and fifteen days after spraying of flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i./ha, flubendiamide 480 SC @ 120 g a.i./ha and flubendiamide 480 SC @ 180 g a.i./ha.

4 Discussion

These findings are in line with Abdul Latif et al. (2009) who reported that flubendiamide application showed better performance in reducing 80.63 per cent fruit infestation by Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee and produced the higher fruit yield in brinjal.

Tatagar et al. (2009) reported that among various dosages flubendiamide 20 WG @ 60 g a.i. ha^-1 recorded highest yield of 7.48 q ha^-1 with lowest fruit damage (by H. armigera and S. litura) of 3.45 per cent followed by flubendiamide 20 WG @ 40 g a.i. ha^-1 (6.72 q ha^-1) in chilli.

Mohapatra et al. (2010) found that flubendiamide belongs to a novel class of insecticide which controls lepidopteran pest complex of cabbage such as diamondback moth, cabbage white butterfly, cluster caterpillar etc.

According to Jyothsna (2013), among all the chemicals tested, flubendiamide (60 g a.i./ha) was found to be the most effective one with a maximum reduction in D. indica population (65.50%), followed by flubendiamide + thiacloprid at 48 + 48 g a.i./ha (62.12%) and lambda cyhalothrin at 18.75 g a.i./ha (59.22%).

Shimoge and Vemuri (2014) found that flubendiamide at 60 g a.i./ha recorded lowest fruit borer infestation of 11.07 as against 39.15 per cent fruit borer infestation in control on number basis. Flubendiamide provided good protection and registered significantly less incidence of Maruca vitrata (Geyer) larvae and pod damage over control during both the seasons.

Bansode et al. (2015) evaluated efficacy of newer insecticides against Earias vitella Fab. infesting okra and the results indicated that flubendiamide @ 60 g a.i./ha was the most effective treatment by recording lowest per cent (13.42%) fruit infestation with highest yield of 15.27 tonnes/ha  followed by indoxacarb @ 75 g a.i./ha.

Katti and Surpur (2015) reported that among the newer insecticide molecules evaluated, flubendiamide 480 SC @ 60 g a.i/ha and flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g a.i/ha were superior in recording less shoot damage (8.7% and 10.00 %), lower fruit damage (5.70% and 9.00%) and higher fruit yield (113.00 q/ha and 104.00 q/ha) in okra.

The above results documented by several researchers support the present findings.

Similarly, flubendiamide 480 SC at lower than 60 g a.i./ha or higher than 60 g a.i./ha was also effective against many lepidopteran pests on other vegetable crops. Ameta and Bunker (2007) investigated that flubendiamide (24, 36 and 48 g a.i./ha), indoxacarb (75 g a.i./ha) and spinosad (75 g a.i./ha) were significantly superior to untreated control in reducing Helicoverpa armigera infestation in tomato. Further, flubendiamide at 48 g a.i./ha caused significantly higher reduction in the population of fruit borer larvae and recorded the lowest fruit damage than the remaining treatments. Ameta and Bunker (2007a) reported that flubendiamide 480 SC @ 50 ml/ha caused significantly higher reduction in diamond back moth on cabbage. Ebbinghaus et al. (2007) reported that flubendiamide applied at 24-48 g a.i./ha, controls the lepidopteran pest complex in cabbage. The product shows an excellent performance in tomatoes, over a range of 24-60 g a.i./ha, against economically important lepidopterans like H. armigera and Spodoptera exigua. Jagginavar et al. (2009) evaluated the efficacy of flubendiamide 480 SC (Fame 480 SC) at three concentrations (60, 72 and 90 g a.i./ha) against L. orbonalis and reported that Flubendiamide 480 SC at 90 and 72 g a.i./ha recorded the lowest levels of shoot damage (11.43 and 16.21%, respectively) at 7 days after the first spray. Flubendiamide 480 SC at 90 and 72 g a.i. ha-1 resulted in the lowest percentages of fruit damage (0.78 and 1.04%) at 7 days after the first spray. Similar trends were observed at seven days after the second spray. Hirooka et al. (2007) reported that dose rates of Phoenix WG (20% flubendiamide) for the control of lepidopteran pests in Japan are 100 mg a.i./l on vegetables and tea. In other countries the dose rates are 50 g a.i./ha on vegetables.

According to Tohnishi et al. (2005), flubendiamide 480 SC is having extremely strong insecticidal activity against lepidopteran insect pests and also very safe to non target organisms. Tang Zhen Hua and Tao Li Ming (2008) reported that flubendiamide was a diamide insecticide has a unique chemical structure and a novel mode of action and show excellent safety against various beneficial arthropods and natural enemies. Latif et al. (2009a) reported that, flubendiamide and Nimbecidine had no negative or harmful effect on plant dwelling predaceous arthropods. Spiders and lady bird beetles were not affected by application of flubendiamide and Nimbecidine for controlling brinjal shoot and fruit borer in the field. Similarly, Flubendiamide) 480 SC was safe to natural enemies of cabbage diamond back moth (Ameta and Bunker, 2007) and tomato fruit borer (Ameta and Bunker, 2007a). The results of the present investigation corroborates with the above reports.

References

Ameta O.P., and Bunker G.K., 2007, Efficacy of NNI0001 (Flubendiamide) 480 SC against diamond back moth, Plutella xylostella L. in cabbage and its effects on natural enemies under field condition. Pestology, 31(6): 21-24

Ameta O.P., and Bunker G.K., 2007a, Efficacy of flubendiamide against fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera in tomato with safety to natural enemies, Indian Journal of Plant Protection, 35(2): 235-237

Bansode A.G., Patil C.S., and Jadhav S.S., 2015, Efficacy of insecticides against shoot and fruit borer, Earias vittella F. infesting okra, Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems, 21(1): 106-109

Ebbinghaus D., Schnorbach H.J., and Elbert A., 2007, Field development of flubendiamide (BeltReg., FameReg., FenosReg., AmoliReg.) - a new insecticide for the control of lepidopterous pests, Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer, 60(2): 219-246

Hirooka T., Kodama H., Kuriyama K., and Nishimatsu T., 2007, Field development of flubendiamide (Phoenix Reg., Takumi Reg.) for lepidopterous insect control on vegetables, fruits, tea, cotton and rice, Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer, 60(2): 203-218

IRAC (2017) IRAC Mode of Action Classification Scheme, Prepared by: Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC) International MoA Working Group, (Version 8.3) p. 1-26

Jagginavar S.B., Sunitha N.D., and Biradar A.P., 2009, Bioefficacy of flubendiamide 480 SC against brinjal fruit and shoot borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.), Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 22(3): 712-713

Jyothsna M., Narendra Reddy C., and Jagdishwar Reddy D., 2013, Bioefficacy of selective insecticides against cucumber moth (Diaphania indica Saunders) on gherkins, Progressive Research, 8(2): 266-268

Katti P., and Surpur S., 2015, Field bio efficacy of flubendiamide 480 SC against okra fruit and shoot borer, Earias vitella (Fab.) during rabi season, 2012-13, International Journal of Plant Protection, 8(2): 319-323

https://doi.org/10.15740/HAS/IJPP/8.2/319-323

Latif M.A., Rahman M.M., Alam M.Z., Hossain M.M., and Solaiman A.R.M., 2009, Threshold based spraying of flubendiamide for the management of brinjal shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis (Lep.: Pyralidae), Journal of Entomological Society of Iran, 29(1): 1-10

Latif M.A., Rahman M.M., Alam M.Z., and Hossain M.M., 2009a, Evaluation of flubendiamide as an IPM component for the management of brinjal shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee, Munis Entomology and Zoology, 4(1): 257-267

Masanori T., Hayami N., and Fujioka S., 2005, Flubendiamide, a novel insecticide highly effective against lepidopteran insect pests, Journal of Pesticide Science, 30: 354-360

https://doi.org/10.1584/jpestics.30.354

Mohapatra S., Ahuja A.K., Deepa M., Sharma D., Jagadish G.K., and Rashmi N., 2010, Persistence and dissipation of flubendiamide and des-iodo flubendiamide in cabbage (Brassica oleracea Linn.) and soil, Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 85(3): 352-356

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-010-0063-4

Nauen R., Konanz S., Hirooka T., Nishimatsu T., and Kodama H., 2007, Flubendiamide: a unique tool in resistance management tactics for pest lepidoptera difficult to control, Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer, 60(2): 247-262

Shimoge D., and Vemuri S.B., 2014, Bioefficacy and dissipation of newer molecules against pests of okra. Indian Journal of Advances in Plant Research, 1: 56-63

Tang Zhen Hua, and Tao Li Ming, 2008, Molecular mechanism of action of novel diamide insecticides on ryanodine receptor, [Chinese], Acta Entomologica Sinica, 51(6): 646-651

Tatagar M.H., Mohankumar H.D., Shivaprasad M., and Mesta R.K., 2009, Bio-efficacy of flubendiamide 20 WG against chilli fruit borers, Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) and Spodoptera litura (Fb.), Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 22(3): 579-581

Tohnishi M., Nakao H., Furuya T., Seo A., Kodama H., Tsubata K., Fujioka S., Kodama H., Hirooka T., and Nishimatsu T., 2005, Flubendiamide, a novel insecticide highly active against lepidopterous insect pests. Journal of Pesticide Science, 30(4): 354-360

https://doi.org/10.1584/jpestics.30.354