2. Represented by
SHAHID HUSSAIN
Reg no# 2k8-PT-128
B.Sc (Hons) Agri. (Entomology)
SINDH AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY TANDO JAM

3.  Triticum aestivium L. is the leading food grain and
staple diet in Pakistan.
 It contributes 18% of value added in agriculture and
2.4% in GDP.
 It is cultivated on area of 8578 thousands hectares
with production of 21 metric million metric tons.
 Wheat is attacked by different species of aphids.

4. Green bug, Schizaphis graminum (Rondani)
Bird cherry-oat aphid, Rhopalosiphum padi (L),
Corn leaf aphid, Rhopalosiphum maidis(F),
 Wheat grain aphid, Sitobion avenae (Fabricius)

5.  Acting as vector for viral diseases
 Honey dew secretion, a media for
development of sooty mould
 Continuous pumping out sap which results in
yellowing and drying of plant
 Toxic action of salivary glands secretions,
results in stunting, deformation and gall
formation

6.  To evaluate the resistance of cereal crop
varieties (Wheat) against Aphids Schizaphis
graminum R, and Rhopalosiphum padi L.
 Wheat lines are screened for their resistance
against aphids Schizaphis graminum R, and
Rhopalosiphum padi L.

7.  Randomly wheat varieties were sown in the pots. When
the seedling was about 5-7 cm in height field collected
aphids species were released on it. They were allowed
to reproduce unchecked, and there they established
colonies. From these rearing pots aphids were obtained
in desired number to be used for the particular
experiment.

8.  Twenty-five seeds per
genotype of wheat lines
were sown in furrow.
 When the seedlings
attained height of 5-6 cm,
aphids were released
 Damage rating (DR) was
noted on visual damage
rating scale of 0-9
 After 10-15 days of
infestation data were
recorded.

9.  Components of host plant resistance are,
1. Antixenosis
2. Antibiosis
3. Tolerance

10.  Toxic or other detrimental effect of plant on
insect that plant releases chemicals which are
deterrents and insects not even come near to
plant.

11.  A toxic or detrimental effect of host plant on
insects, They invade plants but after
consumption of host plant contents
physiological and morphological prevail in
them.

12.  It is ability of host plant that it can sustain
against the a-biotic and biotic factors stress
of environment i.e. insects are utilizing their
body contents but they sustain against it.

13.  Materials:
1. About 35 NUWYT (NORMAL) Line seeds.
2. soil about 40kg mixed with clay, sand and FYM
in the ratio of 1:1:1.
3. plastic pots 30cm diameter and 20cm height,
4. aphid nymphs.
5. plastic cages of 29cm diameter and 30cm
height.
6. muslin cloth.
7. camel hair brush,stool and hand lens.

14.  NUWYT (N) were planted in a circular pattern
about 3cm from the edge of 30cm diameter
plastic pots.
 Five replication of each variety .
 When seedlings were about 5-8 cm in height,
50 aphids were released .
 The seedling were covered with a plastic
cages.
 After 24 , 48 and 72 hours reading was
taken.
 With DR scale of 3-9

15. 1. least preferred (LP),
2. moderately preferred (MP)
3. highly preferred (HP)
According to the average of aphids
attracted towards them.

16.  Materials:
1. About 35 NUWYT-NORMAL (N) Line seeds
2. soil about 40kg mixed with clay, sand and
FYM in the ratio of 1:1:1
3. plastic pots 7cm diameter and 5cm height,
aphid nymphs
4. plastic cages of 6cm diameter and 30cm
height,
5. muslin cloth,
6. camel hair brush,
7. stool and hand lens.

17.  2 seeds of NUWYT (N) were sown and 5 replicates
were made.
 seedlings attend height of 5-6 cm ,one seedling
were thinned and other one was remained.
 One adult of aphid released to each seedling.
 pot was covered with plastic cage .
 When aphids started reproduction leaves two
nymphs and other remove.
 Daily aphid were counted and extra aphids
removed
 Data was collected 10 days continuously.

18.  The entries were categorized as
1. Least fecund (LF)
2. Moderately fecund (MF)
3. highly fecund (HF)
Having numbers of nymphs per seedling.

19.  Materials:
1. About 35 NUWYT-NORMAL (N) Line seeds
2. soil about 40kg mixed with clay, sand and
FYM in the ratio of 1:1:1
3. plastic pots 7cm diameter and 5cm height,
aphid nymphs
4. plastic cages of 6cm diameter and 30cm
height,
5. muslin cloth,
6. camel hair brush,
7. stool and hand lens.

20.  2 seeds of each variety of NUWYT (N) were
sown in pots
 5 replicates were made.
 When seedling attends height of 5-6 cm and
one seedling e thinned and other one
remained.
 10 adults were released to each seedling and
covered with plastic cage
 maintained the population at 10 adults on
each entry every day.

21. After 10 days of release data was recovered on
visual damage rating scale of 3-9, where 3
stands for healthy and 9 stands for dead.
1. Highly tolerant (HT) By the DR of 3-5,
2. moderately tolerant (MT) by DR of 5-7 .
3. least tolerant (LT) by DR of 7-9.

22.  1: Seedling bulk test of NUWYT (N) 2012-13:
 out of 35 varieties 12 were resistant with DR
range from 2-3.
 3 varieties were were susceptible with DR of
7-9.
 20 varieties were moderately resistance.

23. s/no Line/entries 1st damage rating
(09.03.13)
2nd damage rating
(11-03-13) Remarks
1 PR-103
4 4 MR
2 WL-8169
3 3 R
3 CT-09095
5 5 MR
4 NN-GANDAM-2
4 4 MR
5 NN-GANDAM-1
3 3 R
6 V-076346
5 5 MR
7 V-076422 (N1)
5 5 MR
8 V-109384
6 5 MR
9 DN-84
4 3 R
10 DN-93
4 5 MR

24. 12 TW-96010
5 5 MR
13 V-08BT016
5 5 MR
14 V-09082
3 3 R
15 V-10306
3 3 R
16 V-09136
3 4 MR
17 V-09087
3 3 R
18 V-08203
4 3 R
19 WARIS-12
4 2 R
20 NR-421
4 4 MR
21 NR-409
4 4 MR
22 NR-408
4 7 S
23 NR-399
4 3 R

25. 25 V-7/2011
4 6 MR
26 SD-998
5 7 S
27 NIA-MN-8
5 6 MR
28 NARC-2011
4 5 MR
29 FSD-2008
4 3 R
30 V-07096
5 6 MR
31 FAKHRE SARHAD
3 5 MR
32 SEHER-06
4 3 R
33 AAS-2011
7 7 S
34 NIA-SUNEHRI
5 5 MR
35 PIR-08
6 6 MR

26. 
Combined Result of Antixenosis test shows
that 18 entries were least preferred(LP),
 9 entries were moderately preferred (MP)
 8 entries were highly preferred (HP).

27. s/no Line/entries After 24 hours After 48 hours After 72 hours Total Remarks
1 PR-103
2.4 1.8 2 6.2 MP
2 WL-8169
1.4 1.2 1.2 3.8 LP
3 CT-09095
1.2 0.4 1.4 3 LP
4 NN-GANDAM-
2 0.2 1 1.4 2.6 LP
5 NN-GANDAM-
1 2 0.8 1.6 4.4 LP
6 V-076346
2 1.2 1.6 4.8 LP
7 V-076422
(N1) 1.6 3 2.8 7.4 HP
8 V-109384
2 2.4 2.6 7 HP
9 DN-84
1.6 3.2 2.2 7 HP
10 DN-93
1.6 1.4 1.8 4.8 LP
11 TW-96009
1 1.8 2 4.8 LP

28. 12 TW-96010
2.2 1.6 2.2 6 MP
13 V-08BT016
2 2.2 2.2 6.4 MP
14 V-09082
1.2 1 2.2 4.4 LP
15 V-10306
1.2 1.6 2 4.8 LP
16 V-09136
1.6 1.8 2.6 6 MP
17 V-09087
1.6 1.6 2.2 5.4 MP
18 V-08203
1.4 2.6 3.4 7.4 HP
19 WARIS-12
1.6 3 3.6 8.2 HP
20 NR-421
1.2 0.4 1.4 3 LP
21 NR-409
1 1 1 3 LP
22 NR-408
2 2 2 6 MP
23 NR-399
1.6 1.2 1.8 4.6 LP

29. 24 NR-400
2.8 1.2 1.6 5.6 MP
25 V-7/2011
1.6 2.2 1.8 5.6 MP
26 SD-998
1.2 2.2 1.6 5 MP
27 NIA-MN-8
2 1.2 1.6 4.8 LP
28 NARC-2011
1.6 1.4 1.4 4.4 LP
29 FSD-2008
2 1 1.6 4.6 LP
30 V-07096
0.6 1.2 2 3.8 LP
31 FAKHRE
SARHAD 1.2 2 2.6 5.8 MP
32 SEHER-06
2.8 1.4 1.6 5.8 MP
33 AAS-2011
1.4 1.4 1.8 4.6 LP
34 NIA-SUNEHRI
0.6 1.2 1.4 3.2 LP
35 PIR-08
1 1.4 1.4 3.8 LP

30.  Combined result of Antibiosis test shows
that 10 entries, were least fecund (LF)
 23 varieties were moderately fecund (MF).
 Two varieties were highly fecund (HF)
respectively.

31. S/NO Line/entry Total Average Remarks
1 PR-103 64 5.81 MF
2 WL-8169 61 5.54 MF
3 CT09095 55 5.00 MF
4 NN.GANDAM-2 53 4.81 MF
5 NN.GANDAM-1 49 4.45 LF
6 V076346 59 5.36 MF
7 V076422 (NI) 67 6.09 MF
8 V109384 60 5.45 MF
9 DN-84 61 5.54 MF
10 DN-93 65 5.90 MF
11 TW-96009 47 4.27 LF

32. 12 TW-69010 50 4.54 LF
13 V08BT016 50 4.54 LF
14 V-09082 71 6.45 MF
15 V-10306 54 5.90 MF
16 V-09136 49 4.45 LF
17 V-09087 64 5.81 MF
18 V-08203 65 5.90 MF
19 WRIS-12 70 6.36 MF
20 NR-421 60 5.45 MF
21 NR-409 76 6.90 HF
22 NR-408 52 4.75 MF
23 NR-399 74 6.72 HF

33. 24 NR-400 61 5.54 MF
25 V7/2011 50 4.54 LF
26 SD-998 55 5.00 MF
27 NIA-MN-8 64 5.81 MF
28 NARC-2011 61 5.54 MF
29 FSD-2008 77 7.00 HF
30 V-07096 63 5.72 MF
31 Fakhre Sarhad 87 7.90 HF
32 SEHER-06 63 5.72 MF
33 AAS-2011 69 6.27 MF
34 Nia-Sunehri 54 4.90 MF
35 PIR-08 71 6.45 MF

34.  Combined result of Tolerance test shows
that 4 varieties were highly tolerant (HT)
 27 varieties moderately tolerant (MT)
 4 varieties least tolerant (LT).

35. 1st damage rating 2nd damage rating
s/no Line/entries Total Average Remarks Total Average Remarks
1 PR-103 19 3.8 HT 21 4.2 MT
2 WL-8169 24 4.8 MT 31 6.2 MT
3 CT-09095 21 4.2 MT 22 4.4 MT
4 NN-
GANDAM-2
21 4.2 MT 22 4.4 MT
5 NN-
GANDAM-1
26 5.2 MT 29 5.8 MT
6 V-076346 32 6.4 MT 35 7.0 MT
7 V-076422
(N1)
22 4.4 MT 24 4.8 MT
8 V-109384 22 4.4 MT 25 5.0 MT
9 DN-84 16 3.2 HT 17 3.4 HT
10 DN-93 22 4.4 MT 25 5.0 MT
11 TW-96009 39 7.8 LT 42 8.4 LT

36. 12 TW-96010 23 4.6 MT 23 4.6 MT
13 V-08BT016 30 6.0 MT 35 7.0 MT
14 V-09082 36 7.2 LT 38 7.6 MT
15 V-10306 26 5.2 MT 27 5.4 MT
16 V-09136 15 3.0 HT 17 3.4 HT
17 V-09087 22 4.4 MT 30 6.0 MT
18 V-08203 24 4.8 MT 25 5.0 MT
19 WARIS-12 15 3.0 HT 17 3.4 HT
20 NR-421 33 6.6 MT 29 5.8 LT
21 NR-409 29 5.8 MT 33 6.6 MT
22 NR-408 26 7.2 LT 33 6.6 MT
23 NR-399 22 4.4 MT 24 4.8 MT

37. 24 NR-400 21 4.2 MT 26 5.2 MT
25 V-7/2011 26 5.2 MT 30 6.0 MT
26 SD-998 20 4.0 HT 26 5.2 MT
27 NIA-MN-8 17 3.4 HT 20 4.0 HT
28 NARC-2011 34 6.8 MT 38 7.6 LT
29 FSD-2008 32 6.4 MT 35 7.0 MT
30 V-07096 25 5.0 MT 33 6.6 MT
31 FAKHRE
SARHAD
28 5.6 MT 33 6.6 MT
32 SEHER-06 40 6.0 MT 42 8.4 LT
33 AAS-2011 28 5.6 MT 29 5.8 MT
34 NIA-
SUNEHRI
36 7.2 LT 36 7.2 MT
35 PIR-08 31 6.2 MT 32 6.4 MT

38.  Reduce the aphid attack
 Minimize the economic losses
 Enhance the yield
 Reduce the use of pesticides against aphids
 environmental friendly

39. Brassica napus is a bright yellow flowering
member of the family Brassicaceae. It is
believed that Brassica napus originated
from a fortuitous hybridization between the
turnip (B. rapa) and kale (B. oleracea acephala).

40.  Different bio-pesticides and one chemical
were used against cabbage aphid on brassica.
These BIO-pesticides water+surf5%, neem2%,
lemonin1%, lemonin2%, Naturalis1%,
Naturalis2% and chemical (novastar) control
in three replicates each were compared. Data
was collected before and after first, second
and third sprays.

41. R3 T3
p17
T6
p18
T7
p19
T5
p20
T8
p21
T1
p22
T4
p23
T2
p21
R2 T3
p16
T6
p15
T2
p14
T8
p13
T5
p12
T7
p11
T4
p10
T1
p9
R1 T1
p1
T2
p2
T3
p3
T4
p4
T5
p5
T6
p6
T7
p7
T8
p8

42. R1 R2 R3
P1T1R1 P9R2T1 P17R3T3
1.Control 1 9 22
2.water with surf 2 14 24
3.Neem 2% 3 16 17
4.Naturalis 1.0% 4 10 23
5.Naturalis 2.0% 5 12 20
6.Lamonin 1.0% 6 15 18
7.Lamonin 2.0% 7 11 19
8.Novastar 8 13 21

43. S.no chemical R1 R2 R3 Mean R1 R2 R3 Mean
1 Control 2.3 4.66 24 10.32 16 12.66 12.66 13.77
2 Water+
surf 5%
8.66 27.6 48 28.08 14 13.33 19 15.44
3 Neem 2% 0.33 26 19 15.11 13.66 11 17.66 14.10
4 Naturalis
1.0%
0.33 21.3 9.5 10.37 6 15 1.5 7.50
5 Naturalis
2.0%
12 17 11 13.33 14.66 4.33 13 10.66
6 Lamonin
1.0%
1.66 17.66 26.6 15.30 1.66 13.66 24.66 13.32
7 Lamonin
2.0%
0.33 16 23 13.11 9 17.33 16.5 14.27
8 Novastar 10 33.5 10 17.83 1 0 0 0.33

44. S.no Names of bio-
pesticides and
chemical
R1 R2 R3 Mean
1 Control 25 18 15 19.33
2 Water+ surf5% 8 40 3 17.00
3 Neem 2% 30 35 15 26.66
4 Naturalis 1.0% 5 7 5 5.66
5 Naturalis 2.0% 17 10 21 16.00
6 Lamonin 1.0% 13 16 13 14.00
7 Lamonin 2.0% 14 12 8 11.33
8 Novastar 0 0 2 0.66

45. S. No bio-
pesticide
R1 R2 R3 Mean R1 R2 R3 Mean
1 Control 47 13 5 21.66 19 6 2 9.00
2 Water+su
rf5%
6 11 4 7.00 0 1 1 0.66
3 Neem 2% 15 9 0 8.00 0 1 2 1.00
4 Naturalis
1.0%
11 11 9 10.33 2 6 0 2.66
5 Naturalis
2.0%
10 5 13 9.33 0 13 15 9.33
6 Lamonin
1.0%
6 6 9 7.00 9 2 0 3.66
7 Lamonin
2.0%
6 6 7 6.33 4 1 3 2.66
8 Novastar 0 3 2 1.66 1 0 0 0.33

46. 1. Chemical novastar (1.32)
2. Naturalis 1.0% (15.83)
3. Lamonin 1.0% (20.98)
4. Lamonin 2.0% (31.26)
5. Water+ surf 5% (33.1)
6. Naturalis 2.0% (35.99)
7. Neem 2.0 % (41.76)
8. control (42.10).