# I. Introduction hilli (Capsicum annuum L.) is a tropical and subtropical crop grown all over India. It is an important versatile spice as well as vegetable crop. India is the largest producer and consumer of chilli in the world. Chillies constitute about 20 per cent of Indian spice exports in quantity and about 14 per cent in value. It's grown in almost all the state throughout the country. Andhra Pradesh is the largest producer of chilli in India and contributes about 30% to the total area, followed by Karnataka (20%), Maharashtra (15%), Orissa (9%), Tamil Nadu (8%) while other states contributing nearly 18% to the total area under chilli. Among the plethora of constraints in chilli cultivation, the attack by a multitude of insect pests and mite at different crop stages is of utmost concern. The pest spectrum of chilli crop is complex with more than 293 insects and mite species debilitating the crop in field as well as in storage (Anon., 1987 andDey et al., 2001). A total of 39 and 57 species of pests were recorded by Puttaswamy (1983 and in nursery and field crops, respectively in Karnataka. One of the practical means of increasing chilli production is to minimize losses caused by major sucking pests, the most important among them are green peach aphid (Myzys persicae Sulzer, Aphis gossypi Glover), thrips (Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood) and yellow mite (Polyphagotarsonemus latus Banks) (Berke and Sheih, 2000). In Karnataka thrips, mites, aphids and whiteflies have been identified as sucking pests of chilli of which chilli leaf curl caused by mite and thrips are serious (Puttarudriah, 1959). Besides, a number of viruses are transmitted by aphids, whiteflies etc which result into a complex murda (Gundannavar et al., 2007). The yield losses due to these pests are estimated to be 50 per cent (Ahmed et al., 1987;Kandasamy et al., 1990 andHosmani, 2007). The loss caused by the thrips is reported to range from 50 to 90 per cent (Borah, 1987) and fruit borers is to an extent of 90 per cent (Reddy and Reddy, 1999). Pesticide residues in chilli are of great concern from the point of domestic consumption and exports as well. Residues in chilli have been reported by various workers in India (Awasthi et al., 2001;Dhotre et al., 2001 andJoia et al., 2001;Singh et al., 2006;Reddy et al., 2007;Rao et al., 2009;Suganthy et al.,2010 andJyoti et al., 2012). David (1986) identified that application of commonly used insecticide aimed in checking sucking insects like thrips and aphids caused resurgence of P. latus on chilli. Though, insecticidal interventions bring down the pest population, they have led to the problem of residues in fruits. The presence of pesticide residues has seriously affected the export of chillies. It is learnt that Byadagi chilli lots were rejected at international ports of importing countries very often due to high pesticide residues. The reported presence of residues of many insecticides including ethion, chlorpyriphos, cypermethrin, endosulfan and quinalphos have seriously affected the export of chillies (Anon., 2003) Besides, indiscriminate use of chemicals has led to the many undesirable problems like resurgence, destruction of natural enemies, environmental pollution etc. Due to the luxuriant plant canopy and succulency, crops receive maximum pest damage. In this backdrop, crop intensification, crop nourishment etc may create favourable (and at times unfavourable) situations for the pests through physical factors (For example, chilli viruses which are transmitted by insects are also known to be carried through plant sap) or biological factors (Gundannavar et al., 2009). So, different strategies have to be involved for keeping the pest in check and stabilizing the productivity of cropping system. Date of planting and spacing is one of the crop habitat diversifications that are to be looked into, which have the potential to become viable components of a sound IPM programme. # II. # Material and Methods The field experiments were carried out for two seasons to know the effect of planting time and plant geometry on the activity of sucking pests of chilli during Kharif 2008-09 and 2009-10. The experiment was carried out at the MARS, UAS, Dharwad. The experiment was laid out in a split plot design with three replications across four dates of planting viz., M1-June 30th, M2-July 15th, M3-July 30th and M4-August 15th as main plot treatments and four spacings viz., S1-90 x 60cm, S2-60 x 60cm, S3-75 x 45cm and S4-60 x 30cm as sub-plot treatments. The seeds were sown on the raised seed bed on May 15th, May 30th, June 15th and June 30th in 2008-09 and 2009-10. Forty-five days old seedlings were transplanted as per the dates with fifteen days interval in plots size of 5.4 X 4.8 m with different spacings. All management practices were followed as per recommended package of practices except the plant protection measures against target pests. # a) Observations The population count of aphids and thrips were taken at 30, 60 and 90 days after transplanting (DAT). While the population count of mite was taken at 60 and 90 DAT. For counting the population, five plants were selected randomly in each plot and tagged. Six leaves on the top canopy of each selected plant were observed by using binocular microscope in laboratory following destructive sampling procedure. Ten plants were selected randomly in each plot and scored for leaf curling index (LCI) at 70 and 100 DAT visually following the 0-4 scale (Niles, 1980) and subjected for statistical analysis. Pooled analysis for both the years was done with the help of M StatC statistical software. Population count of both grubs and adults of natural enemy fauna that included coccinellid beetles, Menochilus sexmaculatus F and chrysopids, Chrysoperla zastrow sillemi (Esben-Peterson) were recorded in each treatment by following the standard procedure. Population count was taken on five randomly selected plants at 60 and 90 DAT. The population density of predatory coccinellids beetles and chrysopids was recorded as number of coccinellids/plant and chrysopids/plant, respectively. Pooled analysis for both the years was done with the help of M StatC statistical software. Green chillies were harvested from five randomly selected plants in each plot as well as from entire plot separately and yield per plant and per plot was recorded during each picking. Total yield was calculated by adding the yield of each picking. Totally four pickings were done and average of four pickings were given. The per plot yield was converted to quintals per hectare. Dry chilli yield was obtained from the green chilli yield as per the procedure given by Anon. ( 2004), with the ratio of conversion of green chilli to dry chilli being 10:1. Cost effectiveness of each treatment was assessed based on net returns. Net returns of each treatment were worked out by deducting total cost of each treatment from gross returns. Total cost of production included both cultivation as well as plant protection charges. The B: C ratio was worked out by dividing the gross return with the total cost of cultivation. The data on mean population of sucking pests and natural enemies were transformed to Ö x+0.5 and then subjected to one way ANOVA using M-STATC ® software package. The treatment effect was compared by following Duncan's Multiple Range Test (DMRT) (Gomez and Gomez, 1984). # III. # Results and Discussion Pooled data from two years on the effect of planting time and plant geometry on the activity of sucking pests, in general indicated the effectiveness of planting time, plant spacing and interaction of both in suppressing the pests activity vis-à-vis comparison treatments. The details are presented here under. # a) Aphids Pooled data from two years revealed that at 30 DAT, among the main plots, M2 recorded significantly lower aphid population (0.26/leaf) followed by M3 and M4 which recorded aphid population of 0.30 and 0.40 per leaf respectively. While M1 recorded higher aphid population of 0.54 per leaf (Table 1). Among different spacings (subplots) significantly least population of aphids was recorded in S1 (0.29/leaf) followed by S2 (0.34/leaf). While, S4 registered higher aphid population of 0.49 per leaf. The interaction effect between the plating dates and different spacings was found to be significant. Significantly lower aphid population was recorded in M2 + S1 (0.21/leaf) followed by M2 + S2 (0.25/leaf). Whereas, higher aphid population was registered in June 30 and 60X30cm combination i.e. M1 + S4 (0.74/leaf). At 60 DAT, the main plot treatment M2 registered significantly lower aphid population of 0.22 per leaf and was found to be statistically on par with the M3 (0.26/leaf). Whereas, significantly higher aphid population per leaf was registered in M1 (0.50/leaf) followed by M4 (0.35/leaf). Among subplots S1 (90X60cm) registered significantly lower aphid population (0.25/leaf) followed by S2 (0.30/leaf). While S4 recorded higher aphid population of 0.50 per leaf. The interaction effect between planting date and spacing did not have any significant effect on aphid population. At 90 DAT, the pooled aphid population showed similar pattern of treatment differences as evidenced during 30 DAT in main plot and subplot treatments. The interaction effect also followed similar trend (Table 1). # b) Thrips At 30 DAT, among the main plots, M2 registered significantly least thrips population (0.16/leaf) followed by M3 and M1 which recorded thrips population of 0.32 and 0.47 per leaf respectively. While M4 recorded higher thrips population of 0.60 per leaf (Table 2). Among the different spacing i.e., in subplots, significantly less population of thrips was observed in S4 (0.24/leaf) followed by S1 (0.28). Whereas S3 subplot registered higher thrips population of 0.39 per leaf. The interaction effect between the planting date and different spacings was found to be significant. The interaction treatment M2 + S1 recorded significantly lower thrips population (0.08/leaf) followed by M2 + S2 (0.14) whereas higher thrips population was observed in M4 + S4 (0.72/leaf). At 60 DAT, the pooled thrips population showed similar pattern of treatment differences as evidenced during 30 DAT in main plot and subplot treatments. The interaction effect also followed similar trend. The thrips population ranged from 0.18 to 0.53 and 0.33 to 0.44 per leaf during 90 DAT in the main plot and subplot treatments respectively. Significantly lower thrips population of 0.18 and 0.33 per leaf was registered in M2 of main plot and S1 of sub plot treatments, respectively. While M1 (0.53/leaf) and S3 (0.44) registered higher thrips population in main plot and subplot treatments, respectively. However, the interaction effect between main plots and subplots did not have any significant role in thrips population (Table 2). # c) Mites At 60 DAT, among the main plot treatments, significantly lower mite population per leaf was registered in M2 (0.36/leaf) and was found to be statistically at par with the M3 (0.44/leaf). Whereas, significantly higher mite population per leaf was recorded in M2 (0.71) followed by M4 (0.56). Among the subplots, S1 registered significantly lower mite population of 0.44 per leaf. While, moderate number of mites was registered in S2 and S3. Significantly higher mite population was recorded in S4 with a population of 0.65 mites per leaf. The interaction between planting data and different spacings did not have any significant effect on mite population. At 90 DAT, among the main plot treatments and sub plot treatments the mite population ranged from 0.33 to 0.56 and 0.28 to 0.50 mites per leaf, respectively. However, the difference in the population was not statistically significant in both mail plot treatments and subplot treatments. The interaction effect was also nonsignificant (Table 3). # d) Leaf curl index With respect to pooled data of leaf curl index, among the main plot and subplot treatments, significantly least leaf curl index was recorded in July 15th of main plot (0.30 and 0.29) and 90 X 60cm of subplot (0.44 and 0.47) treatments at 70 and 100 DAT respectively. While June 30th planting (0.85 and 0.91) and 60 X 30cm spacing (0.62 and 0.67) registered significantly higher leaf curl index in main plot and subplot treatments, respectively. Interaction effect between main plot and sub plots was found significant. Significantly least leaf curl index was registered in the combination of July 15th transplanting at 90 X 60cm spacing (0.25 and 0.26) followed by July 15th + 75 X 45cm (0.26 and 0.31) and July 15th + 60 X 60cm (0.31 and 0.27) whereas significantly higher leaf curl index was registered in June 30th + 60 X 30cm (0.94 and 1.06) at 70 and 100 DAT (Table 3). There is no much information in literature to suggest the effect of date of planting and spacing on the activity of sucking pests except very few reports. The weather parameters like precipitation, sunlight, relative humidity have been reported to be optimum for transplanting of Byadagi chilli during July in the region (Anon., 2004), leading to better rooting and establishment. June planting which is quite unusual in the tract, perhaps predisposes the crop to early infestation by sucking pests due to non-availability of host. While late planting, as it is known in many crops, attracts greater intensity of pests and subsequent plant damage. The present investigations are in close agreement with Kempegowda (1980) who reported that 15th July transplanting of all the three-chilli varieties viz., NP-46A, Jwala and C-1 recorded the highest yields of green pods than late planting. Late planted crop was liable for heavy infestation by insect pests and mites. Time of transplanting of chilli influences the incidence of pests and diseases. Chilli crop transplanted in early June and July escapes incidence of thrips and mites than the crop transplanted in late July and early August as evidenced by Hosmani (1982). Similarly, Mallapur et al. (1987) found lower incidence of leaf curl due to thrips and mites when crop planted until July. Patel (1992) reported that the population of chilli thrips remain low during July-August due to rains and showed a peak in September-October. Low incidence of leaf curl was observed in chilli crop, in Maharashtra planted until 15th July, while late-planted crop (15th August and 30th August) was severally attacked by leaf curl. Planting of chilli from 30th June to 15th July could escape the thrips damage as reported by Bagle (1998). All these earlier reports corroborate with the results obtained in present study. (2008) evidenced that sowing the crop during June I and II fortnight as well as July I fortnights emerged as better and optimum dates for Byadagi chilli under irrigated conditions. Significantly lower mean population of thrips and mites were registered in protected and unprotected conditions, respectively. This phenomenon of effect of planting date and plant geometry is also seen in other crops. Thiara and Kang (2006) studied the effect of date of sowing of plants for managing the groundnut bud necrosis disease. Percent disease incidence and severity were highest in case of May end sown crop, which was followed by early May and early June sown crop. However, the incidence and severity were significantly low in June end sown crop. # e) Natural enemies The pooled data on the activity of natural enemies suggested that they were found greatly distributed in main plot and sub plots having different planting time and spacings (Table 4). Among the main plots, M2 i.e. July 15th transplanted crop (1.34, 1.38 coccinellids/plant and 1.62, 1.63 chrysopids/plant) recorded significantly more number of predators and was found to be statistically at par with July 30th (1.29, 1.32 coccinellids/plant and 1.39, 1.43 chrysopids/plant) followed by August 30th (1.17, 1.20 coccinellids/plant and 1.29, 1.33 chrysopids/plant) whereas June 30 th ( 1.10, 1.14 coccinellids/plant and 1.17, 1.26 chrysopids/ plant) transplanted crop registered significantly less mean predators count at 60 and 90DAT respectively. Among the different spacings, significantly higher predator count was recorded in 60 X 30cm spacing (1.39, 1.42 coccinellids/plant and 1.54, 1.55 chrysopids/ plant) and was found to be statistically at par with 60 X 60cm followed by 75 X 45cm. While 90 X 60cm transplanted crop (1.07, 1.11 coccinellids/plant and 1.19, 1.29 chrysopids/plant) registered lowest predator population count per plant. The interaction between main plots and subplots was significant. The interaction of July 15 th transplanted crop at 60 X 30cm spacing (1.50, 1.52 coccinellids/plant and 1.71, 1.71 chrysopids/ plant) recorded significantly more number of predators followed by July 30 th + 60 X 30cm and August 15 th + 60 X 30cm. Whereas, significantly least number of predator count was observed by the interaction of June 30th transplanted crop at 90 X 60cm spacing (0.95, 0.98 coccinellids/plant and 1.02, 1.21 chrysopids/plant) (Table 4). There is no much literature available on the effect of sowing date and plant spacing on the activity of predators in chilli crop. However, in other crops, Singh and Nath (2007) indicated that effect of dates of sowing of Brassica juncea on coccinellid beetle of Lipaphis erysimi kalt. Maximum coccinellid population were observed in the last week of February (when crop was on its maturity), while minimum in the last week of December. Bana et al. (2012) studied the seasonal incidence of major pests of cabbage and their natural enemies. The coccinellid beetle was recorded as a important predator of aphid, which was maximum in the second and third week of January. Similarly, Siddiqui et al. (2009) carried out an experiment to determine the influence of planting dates on aphid and their natural enemies in cauliflower varieties. Aphid population was significantly lower in early planting of cauliflower (late September) and higher in case of late planting of cauliflower trial (late October). The rate of parasitism and predation on early planting trial were 3.86 per cent and 0.82 per cent. In late planting trial, the rate of parasitism and predation were 3.3 per cent and 0.42 per cent. Meena and Kanwat (2010), conducted field experiments on the seasonal incidence of coccinellid beetles, Coccinella septempunctata Linnaeus and Menochilus sexmaculatus (Fabricius) on okra. The appearance of the beetles started from the first week of August and reached its maximum in the first week of October in both the years. Weather parameters (minimum temperature and relative humidity) showed significant negative correlation with coccinellid population, whereas, maximum temperature had non-significant positive and rainfall had non-significant negative correlation with coccinellid population. # f) Yield (q/ha) Pooled data revealed that (Table 4), among the main plot treatments, July 15th transplanted crop registered significantly higher mean dry chilli yield of 3.74q/ha, which was on par with July 30th (3.56 q/ha), while the June 30th recorded least mean dry fruit yield of 2.75 q/ha. Among the different spacings significantly more dry chilli yield was observed in 90 X 60cm spacing (3.91q/ha) followed by 60 X 60cm (3.37 q/ha) and 75 X 45cm (3.10 q/ha) spacings, whereas the lowest chilli yield was recorded in 60 X 30cm (2.84 q/ha). The interaction effect between the main plot and subplots was found significant. Significantly highest mean chilli yield was registered in the combination of July 15th transplanted crop at 90 X 60cm (4.21 q/ha) followed by July 30th + 90 X 60cm (4.09 q/ha). Whereas, lowest chilli yield of 1.99 q/ha was registered in the combination of June 30th transplanted crop at 60 X 30cm treatment. The effect of planting date and spacing on yield of chilli has been indicated in UAS package of practices (Anon., 2004). But no information is available in relation to pest effect. Among the different treatments, The interaction effect between July 15th transplanted crop at 90 X 60cm was found to be the most cost effective by recording highest net return (Rs 15,921) followed by July 30th at 75 X 45cm (14,199) and June 30th at 90 X 60cm (13,133). Whereas August 15th 5). By considering different parameters, the treatments viz., July 15th planting at 90 X 60cm, June 30 th at 90 X 60cm and August 15 th at 90 X 60cm were found to be promising against chilli pests. # Global # IV. ![Investigation on the Effects of Planting Time and Plant Geometry on the Activity of Sucking Pests of planted before 15th July receives significantly less chilli leaf curl incidence. Nagaraja et al.](image-2.png "") 1Year 2014ersion I VIVVolume XIV Issue( ) DFrontier ResearchSl. No. 1. 2.Main plot\sub plot S 1 S 230 DAT M1 M2 M3 0.39 (1.12) 0.21 (0.96) 0.24 (0.99) 0.50 (1.21) 0.25 (1.00) 0.29 (1.04)M4 Mean M1 0.35 (1.09) 0.29c (1.04) 0.37 (1.11) 0.34 (1.08) 0.34b (1.08) 0.45 (1.17)Number of aphids/leaf 60 DAT M2 M3 M4 Mean M1 0.15 (0.89) 0.18 (0.92) 0.30 (1.05) 0.25c (1.00) 0.33 (1.07) 0.21 (0.96) 0.25 (1.00) 0.29 (1.04) 0.30b (1.05) 0.31 (1.06)M2 0.12 (0.85) 0.16 (0.90)90 DAT M3 M4 Mean 0.18 (0.92) 0.34 (1.08) 0.24c (0.99) 0.19 (0.94) 0.31 (1.06) 0.24c (0.99)of Science3. 4.S 3 S 40.54 (1.23) 0.74 (1.36)0.27 (1.02) 0.31 (1.06)0.32 (1.07) 0.38 (1.12)0.39 (1.12) 0.54 (1.23)0.38b (1.12) 0.49a (1.20)0.49 (1.20) 0.71 (1.34)0.25 (1.00) 0.29 (1.04)0.29 (1.04) 0.35 (1.09)0.32 (1.07) 0.51 (1.21)0.33b (1.07) 0.46a (1.18)0.41 (1.14) 0.65 (1.31)0.21 (0.96) 0.27 (1.02)0.24 (0.99) 0.26 (1.01)0.38 (1.12) 0.45 (1.17)0.31b (1.06) 0.40a (1.13)Global JournalMean For comparision of means Main (M)0.54a (1.23) S Em± 0.26d (1.01) 0.0270.30c (1.05)0.40b (1.13) CD at 5% 0.0750.370.50a (1.21) S Em± 0.22c (0.97) 0.0250.26c (1.01)0.35b (1.09) CD at 5% 0.33 0.0710.42a (1.15) S Em± 0.19c (0.94) 0.0230.21c (0.96)0.37b (1.11) CD at 5% 0.29 0.063Sub (S)0.0110.0290.0100.0260.0090.025Interaction (MXS)0.1090.3210.106NS0.1030.291CV (%)6.925.625.85M 1 (Month) -June 30 th M 2 -July 15 thM 3 -July 30 thM 4 -August 15 thS 1 (Spacing) -90 X 60cm S 2 -60 X 60cm S 3 -75 X 45 cm S 4 -60 X 30 cmIn a column means followed by the same alphabet did not differ significantly by DMRT (0.05) 2Mainplot\subplotSl.No. 3Number of mites/leafMainplot\subplotSl.No. 4Yield (q/ha) 90 DATM3 M4 Mean M4 Mean M1 M2 M33.42 4.21 4.09 3.91 3.91a 1.24 (1.24) 1.20 (1.20) 1.29 (1.29)2.89 3.81 3.63 3.14 3.37b 1.48 (1.48) 1.34 (1.34) 1.43 (1.43)2.72 3.50 3.32 2.88 3.10c 1.40 (1.40) 1.29 (1.29) 1.39 (1.39)1.99 3.43 3.22 2.74 2.84d 1.59 (1.59) 1.49 (1.49) 1.55 (1.55)2.75c 3.74a 3.56a 3.17ab 3.30 1.43a (1.43) 1.33b (1.33) 1.41S Em± CD at 5% CD at 5%0.319 0.121 0.3410.616 0.253 0.2942.357 0.89 2.9617.15 8.41YearCoccinellids/plant Chrysopids/plant60 DAT 90 DAT 60 DATM2 M4 Mean M1 M1 M2 M3 M4 Mean M1 M2 M3 M4 Mean M1 M2 M31.21 1.49 1.08 1.19c 0.95 1.20 1.16 0.97 1.07b 0.98 1.26 1. 18 1.02 1.11c 1.02 1.45 1.22(1.21) (1.49) (1.08) (1.19) (1.47) (1.60) (1.58) (1.48) (1.53) (1.49) (1.62) (1.59) (1.51) (1.55) (1.02) (1.45) (1.22)1.25 1.65 1.31 1.40a 1.15 1.36 1.32 1.20 1.26a 1.19 1.42 1.31 1.26 1.30b 1.19 1.71 1.39(1.25) (1.65) (1.31) (1.40) (1.57) (1.67) (1.65) (1.60) (1.62) (1.59) (1.69) (1.64) (1.62) (1.64) (1.19) (1.71) (1.39)1.20 1.66 1.20 1.33b 1.03 1.28 1.23 1.15 1.17ab 1.11 1.32 1.29 1.13 1.21b 1.13 1.60 1.38(1.20) (1.66) (1.20) (1.33) (1.51) (1.63) (1.61) (1.57) (1.58) (1.55) (1.65) (1.64) (1.56) (1.60) (1.13) (1.60) (1.38)1.39 1.71 1.55 1.54a 1.27 1.50 1.43 1.35 1.39a 1.29 1.52 1.48 1.40 1.42a 1.35 1.71 1.56(1.39) (1.71) (1.55) (1.54) (1.63) (1.72) (1.70) (1.66) (1.68) (1.64) (1.73) (1.72) (1.68) (1.69) (1.35) (1.71) (1.56)1.26c 1.63a 1.29b 1.37 (1.26) (1.63) (1.29) 1.10c (1.55) 1.34a (1.66) 1.29a (1.63) 1.17b (1.58) 1.22 1.14c (1.57) 1.38a (1.67) 1.32a (1.65) 1.20b (1.60) 1.26 1.17c (1.17) 1.62a (1.62) 1.39b (1.39)S Em± CD at 5% S Em± CD at 5% S Em± CD at 5% S Em±0.121 0.341 0.098 0.285 0.103 0.294 0.1190.112 0.561 0.134 0.389 0.141 0.385 0.1951.081 3.192 0.745 2.143 0.823 2.425 1.1336.16 6.23 9.85ersion I V Issue Global Journal of Science Frontier Research X Volume XIV ( ) DSl. Main plot\sub No. plot1. S 12. S 23. S 34. S 4MeanForcomparisionof meansMain (M)Sub (S)Interaction(MXS)CV (%) © 2014 Global Journals Inc. (US) ## Acknowledgment The first author wishes to thank ICAR, New Delhi for providing financial support in the form of a fellowship and Department of Agricultural Entomology, UAS, Dharwad for providing facilities. * Yield loss due to pests in hot pepper KAhmed GMMohammed NS RMurthy Caps. Newslet 6 1987 * Anonymous 1987 Progress Report * Annual report -2004-05, Spices Board of India. Ministry of Food and Industry Anonymous 2003 * Improved Cultivation Practices for Field Crops Univ. Agric. Sci 2004 Anonymous * Contamination of horticulture ecosystem: Orchard soil and water bodies with pesticide residues MDAwasthi AKAhuja DSharma Proceedings of National Symposium on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Horticultural Crops: New Molecules. Biopesticides and Environment National Symposium on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Horticultural Crops: New Molecules. Biopesticides and EnvironmentBangalore 2001. 17-19 October, 2001 117 * Efficacy of varying dosages of insecticide against thrips BGBagle Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood in chilli and its effect on yield. National Symposium on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Horticultural Crops Bangalore 1998 * Seasonal incidence of major pests of cabbage and their natural enemies JKBana BJat LBajya DR Ind. J. Entomol 74 3 2012 * Chilli peppers in Asia TBerke SCSheih Capsicum and Egg Plant Newslett 19 2000 * DCBorah Bioecology of Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) Acari 1987 * Thysanoptera: Thripidae) infesting chilli and their natural enemies )Tarsonemidae Scirtothrips Hood Univ. Agril. Sci Ph. D Thesis * Influence of insecticidal sprays on the resurgence of yellow mite, Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) on chillies. Resurgence of sucking pests PM MDavid Proc. of Nat. Symp. (Ed.) S. Jayaraj of Nat. Symp. (Ed.) S. JayarajCoimbatore 1986 Tamil Nadu Agric. Univ. * Efficacy of different treatment schedules of profenofos against major pests of chilli PKDey PKSarkar AKSomchoudhury Pestol 25 11 2001 * Dissipation of profenofos in chilli SVDhotre CSPatil MDDethe Proceedingsof National Symposium on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Horticultural Crops: New Molecules. Biopesticides and Environ of National Symposium on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Horticultural Crops: New Molecules. Biopesticides and EnvironBangalore 2001. 17-19 October, 2001 176 * Effect of date of planting on the activity of thrips, mites and development of leaf curl in chilli (Capsicum annuum L.) Gayatridevi RSGiraddi Karnataka J. Agric. Sci 22 1 2007 * KAGomez AAGomez Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research John Wiley and Sons 1984 * Development of Integrated Pest Management modules for chilli pests KPGundannavar RSGiraddi KAKulkarni JSAwaknavar Karnataka J. Agric. Sci 20 2007 * In: National workshop on Current Trends and Future Prospects in Production and Export of Spice Crops with Special Reference to Chillies at UAS, Dhawad KPGundannavar ASByadagi RSGiraddi 2009. February 27-28 Assessing vector-Mosaic virus relationship in Byadagi chilli (Capsicum annum L.) * Cultural practices for chilli MMHosmani Chilli (Edit. Hosmani, M.M.) Tadakod Oni, Dharwad Rajashri Printing Press 1982 * Management of chilli murda complex in irrigated ecosystem Hosamani Uni. Agril. Sci. Dharwad (India) 2007 Ph. D Thesis * Persistence of ethion residues on/in green chilli BSJoia KJaswinder ASUdean Proceedings of National Symposium on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Horticultural Crops:New Molecules. Biopesticides and Environment National Symposium on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Horticultural Crops:New Molecules. Biopesticides and EnvironmentBangalore 2001. 17-19 October, 2001 * Estimation of chlorpyriphos and cypermethrin residues in chilli (Capsicum annuum L.) by gasliquid chromatography GJyoti KMandal RSBattu BSingh Environ Monit Assess 2012 * Evaluation of insecticides for the control of thrips. Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood in chillies (Capsicum annuum L.). The Madras Agric CKandasamy MMohanasundaram PKaruppachamy J 77 1990 * Effects of dates of planting on growth and yield and certain quality attributes of three chilli cultivars KKempegowda 1980 Bangalore (India University of Agricultural Sciences M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis * Infhrence of Influence of nutrient management on chilli pests CPMallapur VSKubasad SGRaju Karnataka J. Agric. Sci 10 1987 * NKMeena PMKanwat Studies on seasonal incidence and relative safety of pesticides 2010 * Influence of Different Dates of Sowing on Thrips and Mites in Chilli under Irrigated Ecosystem TNagaraj AGSrinivas BVPatil ANaganagoud Karnataka J. Agric. Sci 21 3 2008 * Breeding cotton for resistance to insect pests GANiles Breeding plant resistance to insects FMacwell Jennings ) P.R JohnEds Wiley Sons New York 1980 * Estimation of losses and management of thrips infesting chillies In : National Seminar on "Entomology in 21st Century VNPatel Biodiversity, Sustain., Environ. Safety and Human Health 99 1992 * Short review on the leaf curl complex and spray programme for its control MPuttarudriah 1959 * Mysore J. of Agric. Sci 34 * Insecticide Residues in Vegetable crops Grown in Kothapalli Watershed GVRao Ranga KLSahrawat ChRao DasSrinivasa Binitha KReddy Kirankumar BSBharath VRao Rameshwar KV SMurthy SPWani A case Study. Ind. J. Dryland Agric. Res.and Dev 24 2 2009 * Pest infesting chilli (Capsicum annuum L.) in the Nursery DN RReddy Puttaswamy Mysore J. of Agric. Sci 17 1983 * Pest infesting chilli (Capsicum annuum L.) in the transplanted crop DN RReddy Puttaswamy Mysore J. Agric. Sci 19 1984 * An ecofriendly method to combat Helicoverpa armigera MR SReddy GSReddy Hub.). Insect Environ 4 1999 * Dissipation of Fipronil and Profenofos Residues in Chillies (Capsicum annum L.) KReddy Dharma KReddy Narasimha PBMahalingappa Pesticide Res. J 19 1 2007 * Effect of planting dates on aphids and their natural enemies in cauliflower varieties SSSiddiqui MNaeem AANadeem Pak. J. Bot 41 6 2009. 2009 * Pesticide residues in farm gate vegetable samples in Bihar SPSingh Kiran NKSingh Pest Manag. in Hortic. Ecosys 12 2 2006 * Effect of dates of sowing of Brassica juncea on coccinellid beetle of Lipaphis erysimi kalt MKSingh PNath Ann. Plant Protect. Sci 15 1 2007 * Determination of Waiting Period and Harvest Time Residue of Imidacloprid 17.8/SL in Chillies MSuganthy SKuttalam SChandrasekaran 2010 * .JMadras Agric 97 * Effect of date of sowing and efficacy of insecticidal spray for the management of Groundnut bud necrosis virus in groundnut. Ind SKThiara SSKang J. Virol 17 2 2006 * No Treatment Yield (q/ha) Gross Returns (`/ha) Total cost of production (`/ha) Net Returns (`/ha) C:B Ratio 1 3 Sl .42 24190 11057 13133 1: 2.18