Advertisement

Mulberry

  • J. B. Narendra Kumar
  • M. A. Shekhar
  • Vinod Kumar
Chapter

Abstract

Mulberry, Morus alba L., is the sole food plant of the silkworm, Bombyx mori L. For better growth, development and subsequent silk production, the quality of mulberry leaf plays an important role. However, the process of mulberry leaf production is often hampered due to interference by several insect pests. Among them, mealybugs are the important sap suckers, which cause severe qualitative and quantitative damage. Although several species of mealybugs attack mulberry worldwide, in India, pink mealybug (Maconellicoccus hirsutus Green) and papaya mealybug (Paracoccus marginatus Williams & Granara de Willink) in southern plains and root mealybug (Paraputo sp.) in northern hilly region are considered to be important. Integrated pest management (IPM) package consists of various methods such as physical, mechanical, biological, chemical, cultural, botanical, etc. has been developed for their effective management.

Keywords

Neem Cake Leaf Yield Mulberry Leaf Mulberry Plant Neem Seed Kernel Extract 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ali R, Ahmed SU (1990) A preliminary report on the mealybug (Maconellicoccus sp.) and tukra disease of mulberry. Bangladesh J Zool 18(1):123–124Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous (2010a) Handbook of sericulture technologies, 4th Rev edn, (Eds.) Dandin SB, Giridhar, K., Central Silk Board, Bangalore, 427 pGoogle Scholar
  3. Anonymous (2010b) Annual report for 2009–10, Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute, Mysore, p 53Google Scholar
  4. Anonymous (2011) Directory of concluded projects (1943–2010). Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute, Berhampore, 226pGoogle Scholar
  5. Attia AR (2006) Biological control of the striped mealybug, Ferrisia virgata (Ckll.) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on the mulberry tree, Morus alba using the coccinellid predator, Scymnus syriacus. Mars. Egypt J Biol Pest Control 16(1/2):45–50Google Scholar
  6. Babu RS, Dorcus D, Vivekananda M (1994) Changes in morpho-physiology, water relations and nutrients in tukra diseased leaves of a few mulberry varieties. J Seric Sci Jpn 63(3):183–188Google Scholar
  7. Bartlett BR, Clancy DW (1972) The Comstock mealybug in California and observations on some of its natural enemies. J Econ Entomol 65(5):1329–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baskaran P, Ramanujam K, Muralikumaran C, Radhakrishnan NV (1994) Incidence and severity of mealy bug associated with Mulberry leaf curl (Tukra) in Tamil Nadu. Indian J Plant Protect 22(2):145–147Google Scholar
  9. Ben-Dov Y (1994) A systematic catalogue of the mealybugs of the world (Insecta: Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae) with data on geographical distribution, host plants, biology and economic importance. Intercept Limited, Andover, 686 pGoogle Scholar
  10. Biswas S, Das D, Chattopadhyay S, Das SK, Mondal K (2002) Root mealybug (Paraputo sp.) of mulberry in Darjeeling hills: Its severity, Biology and Control. Sericologia 42(1):39–48Google Scholar
  11. Castle SJ, Prabhaker N (2011) Field evaluation of two systemic neonicotinoid insecticides against pink hibiscus mealybug (Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green)) on mulberry trees. J Pest Sci 84(3):363–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chellappan M, Lince L, Indhu P, Cherian T, Anitha S, Jimcymaria T (2013) Host range and distribution pattern of papaya mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus Williams and Granara de Willink (Hemiptera:Pseudococcidae) on selected Euphorbiaceae hosts in Kerala. J Trop Agric 51(1–2):51–59Google Scholar
  13. Das D, Biswas S, Sarkar S, Das SK, Chakrabarti (2004) Population dynamics of the root mealybug, Paraputo sp. on mulberry in the hills of Darjeeling. Sericologia 44(1):95–100Google Scholar
  14. de Almeida JE, Fonseca TC (2000) Mulberry germplasm and cultivation in Brazil. In: FAO electronic conference on “Mulberry for Animal Production”organised from 1st May to 31st June 2000 by Feed Resource Group of FAO, published by FAO, UN, 346 p.Google Scholar
  15. Dhahira Beevi N (1989) Investigations on the mealybug, M. hirsutus and its phytotoxaemia in mulberry. M.Sc. (Ag.) thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Agril. College & Research Institute, Madurai, 89pGoogle Scholar
  16. Dutt N, Mukerjee PK, Sengupta N (1951) Preliminary observations on the incidence of Phenacoccus hirsutus green and its effect on the growth of Hibiscus sabdariffa. Ind J Agric Sci 21:231–237Google Scholar
  17. El-Haidari HS, Aziz FI, Wahab WA (1978) Activity of predators and parasites of the mealybug, Nipaecoccus vastator (Maskell) in Iraq. [Arabic]. Yearbook of Plant Protection Research, Iraq Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform. 1974/1976, 1:41–46Google Scholar
  18. Fallahzadeh M, Hesami S, Moghaddam M (2002) The first record of Coccophagus pseudococci (Hym.: Aphelinidae) parasitoid of mealybugs (Hom.: Pseudococcidae) in Iran. (In English; Summary In Persian). J Entomol Soc Iran 22(1):81–82Google Scholar
  19. Ganesan K (1994) Screening of mulberry varieties for resistance to mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus. M.Sc. (Seri.) thesis, Tamil Nadu Agril. Univ., Coimbatore, 80pGoogle Scholar
  20. Garland JA (1998) Pest risk assessment of the pink mealybug Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green), with particular reference to Canadian greenhouses. PRA 96–21. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall WJ (1926) The hibiscus mealybug (Phenacoccus hirsutus Green) in Egypt in 1925 with notes on the introduction of Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Muls. Technical and Scientific Service, Bulletin No. 70, Ministry of Agriculture, Egypt, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  22. Hemalatha, Shree MP (2008) Analysis of the trend of infestation by sap suckers in mulberry crop system. Ind J Seric 47(1):130–132Google Scholar
  23. Jayaraj S (2006) Integrated nutrient and pest management for sustainable sericulture. In: Abstract in National Seminar on soil health and water management for sustainable sericulture. Regional Sericultural Research Station, Central Silk Board, Kodathi, Bangalore, 27th & 28th Sept. 2006, pp 67–85Google Scholar
  24. Kanchaveli L, Partsvaniya M (2009) Lesser mulberry pyralid – a new mulberry pest in Georgia. [Russian]. Zashchita i Karantin Rastenii 1:36–37Google Scholar
  25. Kasi Reddy B, Venugopal A, Jayaraj S (2004) Studies on pest-predator relationship in mulberry based intercropping system under integrated nutrient management practices. In: Govindan R, Naika R, Sannappa B (eds) Progress of Research on Disease and Pest Management in Sericulture. Seri Publishers, Bangalore, pp 78–81Google Scholar
  26. Kawakami K, Yanagawa H (2003) Illustrated working process of new mulberry cultivation technology. Published by JICA, PEBS project Central Sericultural Research & Training Institute, Central Silk Board, Mysore, p 65Google Scholar
  27. Krishnakumar R, Rajan VP (2009) Record of papaya mealybug infesting mulberry in Kerala. Insect Environ 15(3):29Google Scholar
  28. Kryachko ZF (1978) Comstock’s mealybug [Russian]. Zashchita Rastenii 10:57Google Scholar
  29. Kumar P, Prasad KS, Kishore R, Katiyar RL, Ahsan MM, Datta RK (1995) IPM approach to optimize silkworm cocoon production. In: Proceedings of the international conference Series, pp 252–257Google Scholar
  30. Lavanya Latha K, Harihara Raju A, Jayaraj S (2004) Studies on the effect of fertilizer doses and irrigation schedules for the control of tukra mealybug in mulberry. In: Govindan R, Naika R, Sannappa B (eds) Progress of Research on Disease and Pest Management in Sericulture. Seri Publishers, Bangalore, pp 71–73Google Scholar
  31. Mahalingam CA, Suresh S, Subramanian S, Murugesh KA, Mohanraj P, Shanmugam R (2010) Paracoccus marginatus, − A new pest on mulberry, Morus spp. Karnataka J Agric Sci 23(1):182–183Google Scholar
  32. Manjunath D, Katiyar RL (1995) Demonstration of IPM against tukra in mulberry. Annual report. Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute, Mysore, p 75Google Scholar
  33. Manjunath D, Kishore R, Sathya Prasad K, Kumar V, Kumar P, Datta RK (1996) Biology of the mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus, causing tukra in mulberry. Sericologia 36(3):487–491Google Scholar
  34. Manjunath D, Prasad KS, Katiyar RL, Rajadurai S, Shekhar MA, Sen AK, Datta RK (2000) Integrated Pest Management in Sericulture. In: National conference strategy service research development, 16–18 Nov 2000. Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute, Mysore, p 65Google Scholar
  35. Manjunath D, Sathya Prasad K, Sidde Gowda DK (2003) Ecological approaches for the management of mealybug, Maconellicoccu hirsutus attacking mulberry. National conference on Tropical sericulture for global competitiveness. Central Sericultural Research & Training Institute, Mysore, p 41Google Scholar
  36. Meyerdirk DE, Newell IM, Warkentin RW (1981) Biological control of Comstock mealybug. J Econ Entomol 74(1):79–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Misra CS (1919) Tukra disease of mulberry. In: Proceedings of 3rd Ent Mtg, Pusa, pp 610–618Google Scholar
  38. Misra AK, Das BK, Ahsan MM (1996) New record of Paraputo sp., as a pest of mulberry. Sericologia 36(2):369–371Google Scholar
  39. Mukhopadhyay SK, Das D, Santha Kumar MV, Das NK, Mondal K, Bajpai AK (2010) Weather based forewarning of root mealybug, Paraputo sp. in mulberry of Kalimpong hills. J Plant Protect Sci 2(2):85–87Google Scholar
  40. Mundo FB (1984) Survey and identification of insects associated with mulberry, Morus alba L. in Philippines. Central Luzon State Univ Sci J 5(2):35Google Scholar
  41. Muniappan R, Meyerdirk DE, Sengebau FM, Berringer DD, Reddy GVP (2006) Classical biological control of the papaya mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in the Republic of Palau. Florida Entomol 89:212–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Narendra Kumar JB, Veeraiah TM, Jayaraj S (2006) Tukra mealybug (Maconellicoccus hirsutus Green) of mulberry – Tackling through eco- friendly strategies for sustainable sericulture. In: Abstract in National Seminar on soil health and water management for sustainable sericulture. Regional Sericultural Research Station, Kodathi, Bangalore, 27th & 28th Sept 2006, p 127Google Scholar
  43. Nighat Mehmood (2004) Pests of mulberry in Kashmir valley and their management. In: Govindan R, Naika, R., Sannappa B (eds) Progress of Research on Disease and Pest Management in Sericulture. Seri Publishers, Bangalore, pp 78–81Google Scholar
  44. Oganesyan SB, Babayan GA (1979) The influence of air temperature and humidity on the survival of eggs and duration of embryonic development of the Comstock mealybug. [Russian]. Ekologiya 4:98–100Google Scholar
  45. Philip T, Mary Josepha AV, Soudaminy PV (2002) Insect pests of mulberry in Kerala. Indian Silk 40(9):21–23Google Scholar
  46. Prasad GV, Arumugam V, Mogili T, Raju CS, Qadri SMH (2012) The first case of papaya mealybug infestation in the mulberry gardens of Andhra Pradesh: A report on the extension strategies and control methods adopted to check the menace. J Exp Zool 15(2):545–549Google Scholar
  47. Qadri SMH, Shekhar MA, Vinod Kumar, Narendra Kumar JB (2011) An impact and constraint analysis on the establishment of Acerophagus papayae for the management of papaya mealybug in mulberry ecosystem. Presented at National Symposium on Harnessing Biodiversity for Biological Control of Crop Pests, 25–26th May 2011, National Bureau of Agriculturally Important Insects, Bangalore (Abs. No.I-P- 38)Google Scholar
  48. Raichoudhury DP (1958) A short note on the study of tukra disease of mulberry caused by Phenacoccus hirsutus Green. J Silkworm 4:315–319Google Scholar
  49. Rajadurai S (2005a) Ladybird beetle – a potential bio-control agent for mulberry mealybug. Indian Silk 44(5):5–7Google Scholar
  50. Rajadurai S (2005b) Mulberry pest management. In: Govindaiah, Gupta VP, Sharma DD, Rajadurai S, Nishita Naik V (eds). A text book on Mulberry Crop Protection. Central Silk Board Publication, pp 277–459Google Scholar
  51. Rajadurai S, Thyagarajan V (2003) Mulberry sap sucking pests. Indian Silk 42(4):5–8Google Scholar
  52. Rangaswamy G, Narasimhanna MN, Kasiviswanathan K, Sastry CR, Jolly MS (1976) Sericulture manual 1. Mulberry cultivation. FAO agriculture services bulletin. FAO., Italy, pp 68–82Google Scholar
  53. Ravikumar J, Samuthiravelu P, Qadri SMH, Hemanthkumar L, Jayaraj S (2010) IPM module for tukra mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus (green) and leaf roller, Diaphania pulverulentalis (Hamp.) in mulberry. J Biopesticides 3(1 Spl. Issue):354–357Google Scholar
  54. Roltsch WJ, Meyerdirk DE, Warkentin R, Andress ER, Carrera K (2006) Classical biological control of the pink hibiscus mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) in southern California. Biol Control 37(2):155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Romanchenko AA, Bel’skaya NM (1981) The Comstock mealybug in the Odessa region. [Russian]. Zashchita Rastenii 4:41Google Scholar
  56. Sahito HA, Soomro RB, Talpur MA, Memon SA, Dhiloo KH (2012) Biology of mulberry mealybug, Maconellicoccus Hirsutus (Green) in laboratory conditions. Basic Res J Agric Sci Rev 1(1):11–18Google Scholar
  57. Sakthivel N, Gopalsamy S, Balakrishna R, Qadri SMH (2011) Long tailed mealybug, Pseudococcus longispinus- A new threat to mulberry. Indian Silk 50:8–9Google Scholar
  58. Sakthivel N, Kirsur MV, Balakrishna R (2010) Predatory fauna of papaya mealybug Paracoccus marginatus Williams and Granara de Willink on mulberry in Tamil Nadu. Insect Environ 16(3):117–118Google Scholar
  59. Samuthiravelu P, Ravikumar J, Hemantkumar L, Suresh A, Jayaraj S, Qadri SMH, Vijayakumar R (2005) Effect of green manuring on soil health, pest and natural enemy diversity in mulberry cropping system. In abstracts of National Symposium on Biodiversity and insect pest management, held at Loyola College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu on February 3–4, 2005, p 25Google Scholar
  60. Sánchez MD (2000) World distribution and utilization of mulberry, potential for animal feeding. In: FAO electronic conference on “Mulberry for Animal Production” Published by FAO, Rome, 346 p.Google Scholar
  61. Santha Kumar MV, Chakraborty N, Aswani Kumar C, Bhattacharya SS, Sahakundu AK (1995) New record of a coccinellid [Scymnus nubilus] predator on the pink mealybug. Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) Sericologia 35(2):359–364Google Scholar
  62. Sathya Prasad K, Manjunath D (1992) Monitoring the incidence of pests of mulberry. Annual Report of Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute, Mysore for 1992–93, p 31Google Scholar
  63. Sathya Prasad K, Sujatha CR, Manjunath D, Datta RK (2000) Screening of popular varieties for tukra infestation. In: National conference on strategies on sericulture research and development, Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute, Mysore, 18–20 November, 2000Google Scholar
  64. Savithramma P, Dandin SB (2000) Leaf quality evaluation of mulberry genotypes through chemical analysis. Indian J Seric 39(2):117–121Google Scholar
  65. Shekhar MA, Qadri SMH (2009) Papaya mealybug – A new menace to Mulberry in Tamil Nadu. Indian Silk 48(4):22–23Google Scholar
  66. Shekhar MA, Narendra Kumar JB, Sreenivas BT, Divya SH (2011) Papaya mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus infesting mulberry in Karnataka. Insect Environ 16(4):170–172Google Scholar
  67. Shylesha AN, Joshi S, Rabindra RJ, Bhumannavar BS (2010) Classical biological control of papaya mealybug. Tech. Broch., National Bureau of Agriculturally Important Insects, Bangalore, 4pGoogle Scholar
  68. Sidde Gowda DK, Vinod Kumar (1995) Development of ecological methods for the management of mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus. Annual Report, Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute, Mysore, p 73Google Scholar
  69. Sriharan TP, Samson MV, Krishnaswami S (1979) Studies on the tukra disease of mulberry. Indian J Seric 18:78–80Google Scholar
  70. Suresh S, Jothimani R, Sivasubramaniam P, Karuppuchamy P, Samiayyapan R, Jonanthan ER (2010) Invasive mealybugs of Tamil Nadu and their management. Karnataka J Agric Sci 23:6–9Google Scholar
  71. Williams DJ (2004) Mealybugs of southern Asia. The Natural History Museum/Southdene SDN. BHD, Kuala Lumpur/London, 896 pGoogle Scholar
  72. Zaman A, Qader MA, Islam S, Barman AC, Alam MS, Islam M (1996) Effects of feeding of Tukra affected mulberry leaves on economic characters of silkworm, Bombyx mori L. Pak J Zool 28(2):169–171Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. B. Narendra Kumar
    • 1
  • M. A. Shekhar
    • 1
  • Vinod Kumar
    • 1
  1. 1.Central Sericultural Research and Training InstituteMysoreIndia

Personalised recommendations