Indian Journal of Entomology, 81(4): 000-000 (2019) DoI No.: SPRAY SCHEDULES FOR MANAGEMENT OF LEAF WEBBER CROCIDOLOMIA BINOTALIS (ZELLER) IN MUSTARD R. L. KALASARIYA* AND K. D. PARMAR Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh 362001, Gujarat *Email: dr.ravi@aau.in ABSTRACT The efficacy of five insecticidal spray schedules against leaf webber, Crocidolomia binotalis (Zeller) in mustard was evaluated. The results revealed that schedule 3 consisting of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.006 % at seedling stage, emamectin benzoate 5 WG @ 0.0025 % at pre-flowering stage, Nomuraea rileyi @ 2.5 kg/ha at 50% flowering stage and chlorpyriphos 16% + alphamethrin 1% EC @ 0.055 % (S 3 ) at 50% pod formation stage were superior. The schedule S 4 (flonicamid 50 WG + flubendiamide 480 SC + azadirachtin 1500 ppm + acephate 25 + fenvalerate 3 EC) proved next best. The maximum yield was obtained with this schedule 3. Schedule S 2 (imidacloprid 17.8 SL + indoxacarb 14.5 SC + Lecanicillium lecanii @ 2.5 kg/ha and trizophos 35 + deltamethrin 1 EC) and S 3 (thiamethoxam 25 + emamectin benzoate 5 WG + N. rileyi @ 2.5 kg/ha and chlorpyriphos 16 + alphamethrin 1 EC) could be suggested against mustard leaf webber. Key words: Crocidolomia binotata, insecticides. Nomuraea rileyi, azadirachtin, Lecanicillium lecanii, thiamethoxam, emamectin benzoate, chlorpyriphos, alphamethrin D:\ 81(4) 19169--Kalasariy Mustard is an important oilseed crop in India (Kalasariya and Parmar, 2018), with a productivity of 987 kg/mt (Anonymous, 2018), which is significantly lower. The major factor responsible for this is the damage due to insect pests and diseases (Bakhetia and Sekhon, 1989). More than 43 pests infest rapeseed- mustard, of which about a dozen are major pests (Purwar et al., 2004). Of these, mustard leaf webber Crocidolomia binotalis (Zeller) is an important pest (Rai, 1976; Singh, 2008). Damage is caused mainly by the caterpillars, forming silken web around the leaves, and skeletonizing them. They also feed on flower buds and bore into pods, and about 13.2 to 81.8% loss in yield had been reported (Kalasariya et al., 2019). A single insecticide will not provide effective control of such pests. At flowering stage honey bees play vital role in pollination and increase yield (Kalasariya, 2016). There is need to develop such insecticidal modules, which can provide safety to honey bee. In the present study insecticides selected according to activity of pests and stages of the crop are evaluated to get the most effective schedule. MATERIALS AND METHODS A field experiment was conducted at the Instructional Farm, College of Agriculture, Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh, Gujarat (21.5018 °N,70.4495 °E) during rabi 2012-13 and 2013-14. Gujarat mustard-3 variety was sown at spacing of 45 x 15 cm following recommended package of practices except plant protection. There were four replications and 6 insecticidal spray schedules. During the seedling stage i.e. 20 to 25 days after sowing, the schedule of the insecticides was in order of acetamiprid 20 SP (S 1 ), imidacloprid 17.8 SL (S 2 ), thiamethoxam 25 WG (S 3 ), flonicamid 50 WG (S 4 ) and monocrotophos 36 SL (S 5 ) while during pre-flowering stage i.e., 45 to 55 days after sowing, the schedule of the insecticides was in order of spinosad 45 SC (S 1 ), indoxacarb 14.5 SC (S 2 ), emamectin benzoate 5 WG (S 3 ), flubendamide 480 SC (S 4 ) and quinalphos 25 EC (S 5 ). At the time of 50% flowering stage i.e. 60 to 65 days after sowing, the insecticides were applied in schedule of Beauveria bassiana @ 2.5 kg/ha (S 1 ), Lecanicillium lecanii @ 2.0 kg/ha (S 2 ), Nomuraea rileyi @ 2.5 kg/ha (S 3 ), azadirachtin @ 0.15% (S 4 ) and NSKE 5% (S 5 ). Further, another spray of insecticides was applied in schedule of profenophos 40 + cypermethrin 4 EC (S 1 ), deltamethrin 1 + triazophos 35 EC (S 2 ), chlorpyriphos 16 + alphamethrin 1 EC (S 3 ), acephate 25 + fenvalerate 3 EC (S 4 ) and ethion 40 + cypermethrin 5 EC (S 5 ) at 50% pod formation i.e. 70 to 75 days after sowing. For deciding the quantity of spray fluid required, control plots were sprayed with water. Spray Preview