Popular

Article

Popular Kheti
Volume -7, Issue-3 (July-September), 2019
Available online at www.popularkheti.com
© 2019 popularkheti.com
eISSN: 2321-0001

Spotted Pod Borer, Maruca vitrata (Fabricius): A Threat to Pulses in India

Mahalle Rashmi Manohar1*, Shivani Pallial1 and Radheshyam Dhole2
1
Department of Entomology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141001, India
2
Department of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology, Institute of Agricultural Sciences,
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005, India
*
Email of corresponding author: rashmimahalle27@gmail.com

Spotted pod borer, M. vitrata is one of the major pests of tropical food legumes which
causes damage by webbing of tender leaf axils, flower buds, flowers and pods, thus
forming clusters of flowers or pods on about 39 hosts. Moths and larvae are nocturnal
in nature and infestation is first noticed at the terminal shoots (21 days after planting),
which then shifts to reproductive parts. Larvae are found to infest and cause significant
damage at both vegetative and reproductive stages of the crop. The treatment of
chlorantraniliprole, flubendamide, indoxacarb, thiodicarb and spinosad are used to
reduce larvae of M. vitrata.

Introduction
Pulses form an integral part in the diet of most vegetarians all over the world. Among the various
obstacles responsible for diminishing production of pulses in India, the predominant factor is the
damage caused by insect pests. Among the various insect pest causing economic losses in pulses,
the spotted pod borer, M. vitrata (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) is the most damaging one. Spotted
pod borer, M. vitrata is one of the major pests of tropical food legumes which causes damage by
webbing of tender leaf axils, flower buds, flowers and pods, thus forming clusters of flowers or
pods on about 39 hosts (Ganapathy, 2010). The typical concealed feeding behaviour of the larvae
in the webbed mass safeguards is from natural enemies and diminishes the efficacy of
insecticides. Moths prefer to oviposit at flower bud stage (Sharma, 1998). Larvae move from one
flower to another and each larva may consume 4-6 flowers till it approaches the larval
development. In pigeonpea, the first instar larvae prefer flowers over pods and leaves, while third
instar larvae show a strong preference to pods as compared to flowers and leaves (Sharma,
1998). Third to fifth instar larvae bore into the pods and intermittently into peduncle and stems
(Taylor, 1967). Moths and larvae are nocturnal in nature and infestation is first noticed at the
terminal shoots (21 days after planting), which then shifts to reproductive parts (Jackai, 1981).
Larvae are found to infest and cause significant damage at both vegetative and reproductive
stages of the crop (Ganapathy, 2010).

a. Larva of Maruca vitrata b. Adult moth of Maruca vitrata

Popular Kheti ISSN: 2321-0001 34

 Manohar et al., 2019, Pop. Kheti, 7(3): 34-36 Popular
Article

Host Range
Though an array of insect pests infest the legume crops, M. vitrata has become persistent pest on
various legume crops like pigeonpea, cowpea, mungbean and urdbean. Physalis minima,
Abutilon sp. and Tephrosia sp. (weeds), greengram, blackgram, cowpea, pigeonpea and
groundnut (legumes), daincha and sunhemp (green-manuring crops) have been reported to act as
alternative hosts for M. vitrata (Rani et al., 2013). Evidences show that it has also been reported
from soybean, groundnut, field pea, hyacinth bean, rajmash, limabean and kharif weed
Crotolaria. However, cowpea, pigeonpea and hyacinth have been found to be the most preferred
hosts of Maruca as determined from larval rearing studies (Sharma et al., 2014).
Economic Damage in Different Pulse Crops
Maruca vitrata is known to cause highest infestation in flowers, followed by flower buds,
terminal shoots and pods. Damage due to M. vitrata also varies with respect to branching and
podding pattern in pigeonpea. M. vitrata has been reported to pose serious threat to the
cultivation of early pigeonpea across the country. The extent of infestation in pigeonpea has been
reported to be 89.4 per cent causing total failure of the crop almost every year in Bihar (Sinha et
al., 1979). Halder (2004) conducted experiments on field screening of the flower buds, flowers
and pods of the five legume crops, viz., cowpea, field bean, pigeonpea, mungbean and urdbean
against M. vitrata. The results revealed that significant differences existed in the infestation
levels of M. vitrata and highest incidence on flower and flower buds was in cowpea (46.10%),
followed by field bean (15.38%), urdbean (10.97%) and mungbean (9.75%), while least damage
was in pigeonpea (3.29%). Maximum pod damage (39.52%) was also noticed in cowpea,
followed by urdbean (9.75%), mungbean (9.44%), field bean (7.35%), whereas lowest was in
pigeonpea (2.6%). The damage due to pod borer complex including M. testulalis in blackgram
ranged from 8.1 to 22.6 per cent as estimated by Sontakke and Muduli (1990) in blackgram.
Prasad et al. (2011) reported that the spotted pod borer caused about 5.07 to 16.66 per cent pod
damage in dolichos bean. Mandal (2005) reported that the population of M. testulalis was higher
than that of the other pod borer with the pod damage in the range of 8.6 to 28.2 per cent among
the ricebean cultivars.
Management
Application of insecticides is still supposed to be the first line of defense for the efficient control
of insect pests. However, degradation of environment and the development of resistance to
synthetic insecticides in the insect pests have become a matter of great concern (Armes et al.
1992). These problems have triggered the discovery of novel chemistry, more effective and eco-
friendly alternatives for pest control. Therefore, evaluation of newer molecules having novel
mode of action for their efficacy against a pest like M. vitrata is necessary. Investigations on the
bioefficacy of some novel insecticides against spotted pod borer, M. vitrata have revealed that
the treatment of chlorantraniliprole, flubendamide, indoxacarb, thiodicarb and spinosad cause
highest per cent reduction of larvae of M. vitrata. Bio-pesticides like Bacillus thuringiensis,
entomopathogenic fungi such as Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae, and neem oil
either alone or in combinations with other bio-pesticides have been proved to be an effective
tool in managing the borer pests including M. vitrata (Srinivasan, 2008).
Conclusion
Maruca vitrata has become a threat to the pulse production across the world and India as well.
There is a dire need to undertake eco-friendly measures which rely heavily on the use of bio-
pesticides to manage the pest population without causing any harm to the users, consumers
and the environment.

Popular Kheti ISSN: 2321-0001 35

 Manohar et al., 2019, Pop. Kheti, 7(3): 34-36 Popular
Article

References
Armes NJ, Jadhav DR, Bond GS, King ABS and Sundraramurthy VT (1992). Insecticide resistance in
Helicoverpa armigera: metabolic mechanisms mediating pyrethroids in South India. Pestic Sci
34:355-64.
Ganapathy N (2010). Spotted pod borer, Maruca vitrata Geyer in legumes: Ecology and management.
Madras Agric J 97:199-211.
Halder J (2004). Host plant interactions of spotted pod borer, Maruca vitrata (Geyer). M.Sc. Thesis,
Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
Jackai LEN (1981). Relationship between cowpea crop phenology and field infestation by the legume pod
borer, Maruca testulalis. Ann ent Soc Am 14:402-08.
Mandal SMA (2005). Preliminary field evaluation of ricebean varieties against pod borers. Insect Envir
11:47-48.
Prasad BSR, Gowda MB, Babu CSJ, Kumar GNV and Pramila CK (2011). Pests and predators activity on
new variety of dolichos bean [Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet]. Int J Pl Prot 4:385-89.
Rani S, Rao GR, Chalam MSV, Patibanda AK and Rao VS (2013). Summer season survey for incidence
of Maruca vitrata (Geyer) (Pyralidae: Lepidoptera) and its natural enemies on greengram and
other alternative hosts in main pulse growing tracts of Khammam District. J Res ANGRAU 41:16-
20.
Sharma HC (1998). Bionomics, host plant resistance and management of legume pod borer, Maruca
vitrata -a review. Crop Prot 17:373-86.
Sharma OP, Yelshetty S, Vennila S, Gopali JB, Rachappa V, Bhagat S, Kumari A, Awasti M, Patil VR
and Chattopadhyay C (2014). Field guide for spotted pod borer (Maruca vitrata). National Centre
for Integrated Pest Management, New Delhi. Tech Bull 32:14.
Sinha MM, Yadav RP and Kumar A (1979). Multidirectional approach for pest management in arhar
(Cajanus cajan) in Bihar. Pesticides 13:14-16.
Sontakke BK and Muduli KS (1990). Field screening of promising greengram and blackgram varieties
against pod borer complex. Orissa J agric Res 3:288-90.
Srinivasan G (2008). Bioefficacy of chemical and biorational insecticides against spotted pod borer,
Maruca vitrata (Geyer) in short duration pigeonpea. Pestic Res J 20:221-23.
Taylor TA (1967). The bionomics of Maruca testululis (Gey) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), a major pest of
cowpeas in Nigeria. J West Afr sci Assoc 12:111-29.

Popular Kheti ISSN: 2321-0001 36