Regulated Pests and their Origins

The historic Silk Road system of trade routes across Asia would have been the origin of much of the early human initiated dispersal of many, now cosmopolitan, oriental pest species to Europe and the converse, together with the dispersal of pests from and to places en route. The pests most amenable to this type of movement were those associated with durable commodities and staple diet consumables. However, a degree of susceptibility to dispersal is evident, with some grain and structural fabric pests proving highly mobile and now cosmopolitan while others are still relatively restricted to their original areas.
These latter, such as the very destructive dermestid khapra beetle, Trogoderma granarium, and the bostrychid larger grain borer, Prostephanus truncatus, have achieved major status as quarantine pests in recent times because of their still limited distribution. Nevertheless most pests of durable commodities had achieved cosmopolitan status before the advent of modern phytosanitary practice and these pests have become even more widely dispersed through recent sea and air trade.

As trading ships became faster the type of host commodity transported became more diverse and with it the pests associated with more perishable commodities as these were included in trade or carried as sustenance of ships’ crews. Dispersal of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata, illustrates this well (Maddison and Bartlett, 1989). A major host is citrus and early voyagers learned the benefits of fresh citrus to prevent scurvy. Citrus was cultivated in the Asian subcontinent from earliest times (Willis, 1966) but with the advent of trade became widely cultivated in the Mediterranean region especially the Iberian and Italian peninsulas where Mediterranean fruit fly was probably endemic by then, despite its southern African region origins. With the development of sea trade, convenient ports were developed for watering, fuelling and replenishment of food including fresh fruit and vegetables. Today many of these can be identified as areas of establishment of Mediterranean fruit fly including the Canary Islands, St Helena, Cape Province South Africa, south-west Western Australia, Hawaii, Central America and landfalls in South America such as Rio de Janeiro. Undoubtedly there were other areas where the species failed to establish initially or failed to survive long term including eastern Australia and New Zealand.

A source of confirmation of pest dispersal in this way can often be found in the label data on specimens in entomological reference collections in the locations in question and elsewhere the species might have been of interest. Many are recorded in distribution data of taxonomic papers on the pest species. Care must be exercised to differentiate between specimens taken as interceptions at entry and those from established populations at the recorded location. However, even interception records are valuable in that they indicate the possibility of establishment on that or other occasions. The outcome of this historical process is that many pests will be found to have reached their limit of dispersal before phytosanitary quarantine became an established practice. In some places they will be recognizably endemic and consequently of no justifiable quarantine significance. In other places where establishment potential is marginal they may be present and persisting below the limit of ordinary detection. If this can be determined, there might be no justification for quarantine barriers to trade with respect to that pest. The reliability of pest incidence data is in direct relation to the search effort put into detection surveys.

References:

Maddison, P.A. and Bartlett, B.J. (1989) A contribution towards the zoogeography of the Tephritidae. In: Robinson, A.S. and Hooper, G. (eds) Fruit Flies, their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. Vol. 3A. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 27–35.
Willis, J.C. (1966) A Dictionary of the Flowering Plants and Ferns.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Pest management can increase agro-production

Friday, July-12-2013

Agricultural production can be increased manifold with the adoption of the latest pest management practices that will reduce agricultural losses worth million of rupees.

This was stated by speakers at 2nd Post Graduate Entomological Research Council's seminar, which was arranged by Department of Entomology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.

As many as 53 students presented their research papers in the shape of oral and poster presentations. It was aimed at providing a platform to the students to showcase their research work in comparative environment. Dr Abdus Salam stressed the need to give the awareness among the farmers community about the various plant diseases and their precaution. He said Pakistan is losing its crops worth million of rupees because of attack of different insects.

He called for stepping up efforts on the part of stakeholders, scientists and entomologists to address the issue. He was of the view that conference will help farmers in the form of mapping out a comprehensive plan to reduce the agricultural damages.

Dr Jalal Arif said that plant diagnostic lab will be set up at his department that will work round the clock. He added that the lab will facilitate the farming community in diagnosing the plant diseases. He also stressed the need to promote Integrated Pest Management (IPM) which is an effective and environmentally sensitive approach to pest management. Talking about citrus, he said Pakistan is earning foreign exchange by exporting the citrus but greening disease is a major challenge confronting the sector. He said if tangibles steps are not taken, the country will be left with no citrus after a couple of decades.

Dr Anjum Sohail said that our agro-production is low compared to developed world because of improper or un-integrated pest management practices. In Pakistan, cotton crop is attacked by about 150 types of insect pests, he added. Dr Ehsanullah, Dr Aslam Pervez, Dr Mansoor-ul-Hassan Sahi, Dr Zahir Ahmad Zahir, Dr Waseem Akram, Dr Jaffar Jaskani, Dr Dildar Gogi, Dr Muhammad Sagheer, Dr Khuraam Zia, Dr Jam Nazir, Dr Zain-ul-Abadien, Dr Ahmad Nawaz, Dr Arshad, Dr Waqas Wakeel, and Scientists from Ayub Research Hafiz Saleem, Dr Amjad Ali and Dr Abrar were also take part in the seminar. 

Source: Business Recorder
News Collected by agrinfobank.com Team

Distribution and Management of Meloidogyne spp. On Okra

The survey of 17 districts of the Punjab province of the country revealed that root-knot nematodes prevailed in 85.25% of okra fields with an average incidence of 38.89%. Hundred percent prevalence was recorded in Multan, Okara, Dera Ghazi Khan, Bahawalnagar, Vehari, Rahim Yar Khan and Rawalpindi districts and a minimum prevalence of 22.4% was found in Lodhran district. The incidence was above 60% in Bahawalnagar, Rahim Yar Khan, Dera Ghazi Khan and Vehari and was only 4.44% in Lodhran.

The severity of infection of the nematodes was highest in Bahawalnagar and Vehari, while it was lowest in Lodhran. Of the four most common root-knot species, M. incognita contributed 74.74%, M. javanica 24.02%, M. arenaria 2% and M. hapla 0.78%. Of the twelve cultivars of okra screened for resistance against M. incognita, none was found tolerant, highly resistant or moderately resistant. Two cultivars viz. Selection-31 and Okra Sindha were susceptible and the cultivar Punjab Selection was found highly susceptible. The rest of the cultivars showed moderate susceptibility towards the nematode. All the cultivars caused reduction in various growth parameters to varying levels over their respective controls. When the effect of different inoculum levels of M. incognita was investigated on the highly susceptible okra cultivar ‘Punjab Selection’, all the densities of nematode behaved differently. The reduction in growth parameters and increases in number of galls and egg masses were found directly proportional to the inoculum level as against, the nematodes build up which was found to be inversely proportional. 2 All the tested antagonists proved effective in controlling M. incognita and significantly increased the root and shoot lengths and weights and caused reductions in number of galls and egg masses. Pochonia chlamydosporia and Pasteuria penetrans were found equally effective at a concentration of 8 103 chlamydospores / endospores per gram of soil. Incorporation of leaves of Azadirachta indica, Calotropis procera, Tagetes erecta and Datura stramonium in the soil @ 25, 50 and 75 g / kg of soil controlled M. incognita to varying degree. A. indica and C. procera caused maximum reductions in number of galls, egg masses and reproduction factor (Rf) of the nematode resulting into an increases in various growth parameters.

Reference: Muhammad Arshad , Hussain (2011) Studies on Biology, Distribution and Management of Meloidogyne spp. On Okra. PhD thesis, University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi .

GMO Agriculture and Chemical Pesticides are Killing the Honeybees

By Dr Joseph Mercola

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has failed to protect honeybees from neonicotinoid pesticides, according to a lawsuit against the agency, filed by beekeepers and environmental groups. Said Paul Towers, spokesperson for the Pesticide Action Network (PAN), one of the groups involved in the lawsuit:

“Despite our best efforts to warn the agency about the problems posed by neonicotinoids, the EPA continued to ignore the clear warning signs of an ag system in trouble.”

Lawsuit Maintains the Link Between Neonicotinoids and Honeybees Die Off Is ‘Crystal Clear’

Neonicotinoid pesticides are a newer class of chemicals that are applied to seeds before planting. This allows the pesticide to be taken up through the plant’s vascular system as it grows, where it is expressed in the pollen and nectar.

These insecticides are highly toxic to Honeybees because they are systemic, water soluble, and pervasive. They get into the soil and groundwater where they can accumulate and remain for many years and present long-term toxicity to the hive as well as to other species, such as songbirds.

Neonicotinoids affect insects’ central nervous systems in ways that are cumulative and irreversible. Even minute amounts can have profound effects over time.

The disappearance of bee colonies began accelerating in the United States shortly after the EPA allowed these new insecticides on the market in the mid-2000s. The lawsuit alleges that the EPA allowed the neonicotinoids to remain on the market despite clear warning signs of a problem.

It also alleges the EPA acted outside of the law by allowing conditional registration of the pesticides, a measure that allows a product to enter the market despite the absence of certain data.

European Food Safety Authority Ruled Neonicotinoids ‘Unacceptable’

The EPA’s continued allowance of neonicotinoids becomes all the more irresponsible in light of recent findings by other government organizations. Earlier this year, for instance, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) released a report that ruled neonicotinoid insecticides are essentially “unacceptable” for many crops.1 The European Commission asked EFSA to assess the risks associated with the use of three common neonicotinoids – clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam – with particular focus on:

Their acute and chronic effects on bee colony survival and development

Their effects on bee larvae and bee behavior

The risks posed by sub-lethal doses of the three chemicals

One of the glaring issues that EFSA came across was a widespread lack of information, with scientists noting that in some cases gaps in data made it impossible to conduct an accurate risk assessment. Still, what they did find was “a number of risks posed to bees” by the three neonicotinoid insecticides. The Authority found that when it comes to neonicotinoid exposure from residues in nectar and pollen in the flowers of treated plants:2

“…only uses on crops not attractive to honeybees were considered acceptable.”

As for exposure from dust produced during the sowing of treated seeds, the Authority ruled “a risk to honeybees was indicated or could not be excluded…” Unfortunately, neonicotinoids have become the fastest growing insecticides in the world. In the US, virtually all genetically engineered Bt corn crops are treated with neonicotinoids.

Serious Risks to Bees Already Established

One of the observed effects of these insecticides is weakening of the bee’s immune system. Forager bees bring pesticide-laden pollen back to the hive, where it’s consumed by all of the bees.

Six months later, their immune systems fail, and they fall prey to secondary, seemingly “natural” bee infections, such as parasites, mites, viruses, fungi and bacteria. Pathogens such as Varroa mites, Nosema, fungal and bacterial infections, and Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) are found in large amounts in honeybee hives on the verge of collapse.

Serious honeybee die-offs have been occurring around the world for the past decade but no one knows exactly why the bees are disappearing.

The phenomenon, dubbed Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), is thought to be caused by a variety of imbalances in the environment, although agricultural practices such as the use of neonicotinoid pesticides are receiving growing attention as more research comes in. As written in the journal Nature:3

“Social bee colonies depend on the collective performance of many individual workers. Thus, although field-level pesticide concentrations can have subtle or sublethal effects at the individual level, it is not known whether bee societies can buffer such effects or whether it results in a severe cumulative effect at the colony level. Furthermore, widespread agricultural intensification means that bees are exposed to numerous pesticides when foraging, yet the possible combinatorial effects of pesticide exposure have rarely been investigated.”

This is what the Nature study set out to determine, and it was revealed that bees given access to neonicotinoid and pyrethroid pesticides were adversely affected in numerous ways, including:

Fewer adult worker bees emerged from larvae

A higher proportion of foragers failed to return to the nest

A higher death rate among worker bees

An increased likelihood of colony failure

The researchers said:

“Here we show that chronic exposure of bumble bees to two pesticides (neonicotinoid and pyrethroid) at concentrations that could approximate field-level exposure impairs natural foraging behavior and increases worker mortality leading to significant reductions in brood development and colony success.

We found that worker foraging performance, particularly pollen collecting efficiency, was significantly reduced with observed knock-on effects for forager recruitment, worker losses and overall worker productivity. Moreover, we provide evidence that combinatorial exposure to pesticides increases the propensity of colonies to fail.”

Why the Food Supply Could Be Dependent on Urgent Action by the EPA

The EPA acknowledges that “pesticide poisoning” may be one factor leading to colony collapse disorder,4 yet they have been slow to act to protect bees from this threat. The current lawsuit may help spur them toward more urgent action, which is desperately needed as the food supply hangs in the balance.

There are about 100 crop species that provide 90 percent of food globally. Of these, 71 are pollinated by bees.5 In the US alone, a full one-third of the food supply depends on pollination from bees. Apple orchards, for instance, require one colony of bees per acre to be adequately pollinated. So if bee colonies continue to be devastated, major food shortages could result.

There is also concern that the pesticides could be impacting other pollinators as well, including bumblebees, hoverflies, butterflies, moths and others, which could further impact the environment.

Four Steps to Help Protect the Bees

If you would like to learn more about the economic, political and ecological implications of the worldwide disappearance of the honeybee, check out the documentary film Vanishing of the Bees. If you’d like to get involved, here are four actions you can take to help preserve and protect our honeybees:

Support organic farmers and shop at local farmer’s markets as often as possible. You can “vote with your fork” three times a day. (When you buy organic, you are making a statement by saying “no” to GMOs and toxic pesticides!)

Cut the use of toxic chemicals in your house and on your lawn, and use only organic, all-natural forms of pest control.

Better yet, get rid of your lawn altogether and plant a garden or other natural habitat. Lawns offer very little benefit for the environment. Both flower and vegetable gardens provide excellent natural honeybee habitats.

Become an amateur beekeeper. Having a hive in your garden requires only about an hour of your time per week, benefits your local ecosystem, and you can enjoy your own honey!

^{Source: Global Research}

Beekeeping: Pests of honey Bees

I. Introduction

Honey bees are attacked by a number of enemies and take a heavy toll of bee life and their destructive activities result in desertion of hives by bees. Bee enemies are described under two categories namely insects and vertebrates. The control measures for each of these pests is different as the nature of their damage is different.

ll. Insects

Insects like ants, wasps, wax moths etc, pose a serious threat to bees. Ants take virtually everything in the hive, wasps and hornets generally cause the bees to abscond. The wax moth causes damage both to bee-colonies and to the bee products. A brief account of these enemies, with possible suggestions to reduce the loss and to acquaint the bee-keepers with knowledge which may be needed any time, is given here.

1. Ants

Various species of ants i.e.. Conponotus compressus (carpenter ant), Dorglus labiatus (red ant), Monomorium and Solenopsis spp (fire ant), have been reported causing problem to both traditional beekeeping with Apis cerana and to modem beekeeping with Apis mellifera.

Damages

Ants are among the most common predators of honey bees in India. Ants being highly social insects, they attack the hive en- masse, taking virtually everything in them. They take away honey, brood, pollen, dead bees and other debris. In addition to this destruction, they also cause nuisance and sometimes pain to the beekeeper as well.

Control

Some of the precautions to reduce the damage caused by the ants are given here.

(i) Maintain the bee colony sufficiently strong enough. Usually populous strong colony succeeds in keeping the ants at bay.

(ii) As the ants live in underground colonies, their nests should be destroyed by fumigating them with two to four table-spoons of carbon disulphide or by pouring into them 9 -10 litres of BHC suspension or 0.1 % Aldrin emulsion or 0.33 kg of 40% Chlorodane (wettable powder) in 15 litres of water and scaling them with mud. It should preferably be applied at a time when the bees are not active.

(iii) Bee colonies can be kept free from ants by placing the hives on stands with their legs in earthen cups containing water. Since bees mostly drink from it, the water should be pure.

(iv) The legs of the hive stand may be painted with used engine oil or wounded round with tape soaked in corrosive sublimate to serve as a good repellent for ants. This needs renewing once or twice a month.

(v) A newly installed bee-hive should be visited frequently to check the invasion of ants.

2. Wasps

Several species of wasps, like Vespa orientals (yellow wasp), Vespa auraia (golden wasp), Vespa magnifica (black wasp), etc. are found in Indian plains and hills. The life cycle of the wasps mostly starts with fecundate female wasps, which starts making new nests in spring. The worker wasps, on emergence help their mothers and take over the field work, since wasps too are social insects like bees. The nest becomes populous during the monsoon and autumn. The population of a nest is at its peak during autumn. At tile end of autumn, all types of wasps, except fecundate females die out. The fecundate females pass their winter under the cover of nooks and crevices and start building nests in coming spring.

Damages

Wasps are predaceous by nature and catch bees from blossoms or at the entrance of a hive. Weak colonies become their special targets. The attacking behaviour of the wasps is described in three phases (i) hunting phase, (ii) slaughtering phase and (iii) occupation phase.

Hunting phase

Initially a hunting phase is observed, when the wasps capture the slow -flying bees or one bee at a time. It happens usually near the entrance of a weak colony's hive or bee flying near the flowers to collect pollen or nectar.

Slaughtering phase

If the colony is found to be weak one, a slaughtering phase sets in. A few wasps 30 -50 in number attack a weak colony en-masse, using their strong jaws to maul the bees and dropping the dead on the ground. If this phase continues long enough the colony under attack would have lost most of its defender workers. The colony becomes very weak to resist any attack by the wasps.

Occupational phase

In a very weak colony, the wasps invade and occupy the inside of the hive. They consume, all honey, brood and carry them to their own nest.

Control

The following precautionary measures are suggest to reduce tile risk of wasps.

(i) The best method to get rid of wasps is to kill the fecundate females early in the spring, when they start making new nests. A part time workers team can be arranged by co-operatives or big apiaries or government, for killing queen wasp in an area before the breeding season.

(ii) Destroying all the nests of the wasps in the vicinity of the apiaries. This can be done in two ways, one by burning with kerosene torch and second by fumigation or spraying or dusting insecticides like 5% benzene hexachloride emulsion or 10% D.D. T. Sometimes it is difficult to find the nest of the wasps, since wasps can fly to a longer distance and come from a considerable distance in search of bees. This creates problem in finding the nest of the wasps. A simple technique to find the nest is to capture the wasp, tie a 15 cm long thread around its thorax and then it is released and followed till it reaches the nest. Then the nest is destroyed as mentioned above.

(iii) An effort to kill the wasps at the entrance of the hive with the help of fly flappers or wooden strips is sometimes useful in the early spring. But generally it is time consuming and laborious.

3. Wax moths

A number of moths, like Galleria melionellas (the greater wax- moth), Achroia grisella (the lesser wax-motIl), Ephestia kuhniella (flour moth), Ephestia cantelia (fig moth), Plodia inter-punctela (meal moth), etc, are noticed in combs, but their damage is occasional. The greater wax -moth is by far the most serious threat to combs, while the lesser wax -moth is a comparatively minor pest. The life cycle of the greater wax-moth may be completed in six -weaks to six months. This depend upon climate temperature and nature of the natural food. At normal temperature of 30 -35 0 C, an egg may become an adult in about seven weeks. The pest remains active from March to October. In localities with comparatively warm winters, all stages of the pests are met within hive through out the year. The most probable period of emergence of adults is in March and April. The males and females mate within a day and female then enters the hive usually at night and lay egg-clusters in hidden places like cracks and crevices and sometimes in open surface.

The incubation period of eggs at 350 C is about a week. Young caterpillars are exceedingly active and cause much damage. How long they live in caterpillar condition depends upon temperature and abundance of proper food. It may vary from a month to five months. The pest hibernates in store combs (honey combs) in the caterpillar form and pupal form. Depending upon the temperature, the adult moths may emerge in a week or after two months.

Damages

Wax moths are most destructive in warmer areas. The preferred food of the wax moth larvae is the larval skins and the pupal cases that line the brood cells and pollens. In the process of securing these portions of the comb the larvae tend to destroy the whole comb with bored pathway, and leave a trail of faecal matter and webbing. The grater wax moth larvae do even greater damage when they pupate. Its caterpillar eats old combs, propolis, pollen, cast larval skins and other such proteinaceous matter, but they cannot live on pure bee wax. They have no use of honey or brood but the bees emerged from such larva infected hives are mostly malformed. Larvae may tunnel through newly built comb, but gradually shrink in size and eventually are starved to death because they cannot digest pure beeswax.

Almost all colonies of Apis indica, Apis dorsata, Apis flora and Apis mellifera are infested with this pest chronically and the caterpillars actively sabotage or undo the work of colonies continuously. They suddenly acquire a dangerous importance during a dearth period and the monsoon and make the colonies desert their nests. The deserted colonies become further source of infection for newly established colonies or swarms.

The first indication of the entry of the female moth and development of the larvae in the hive or comb is the presence of small masses of minute particles of wax outside the holes of the hive. Later, faint webbings are perceptible over some cells of the comb. When infestation has progressed far enough, silken tunnels with caterpillars wriggling in them are noticed and eventually the whole comb is a mass of webbings in which the excreta of the caterpillars is enmeshed. In severe cases of infestation, further brood rearing is topped, field work is virtually suspended and the colony deserts.

Control

No practical chemotherapeutic measures exist for controlling the wax moth in live honey bee colonies. Some of the preventive measures are given here.

(i) A newly established colony can be kept free from infection by the vigilant beekeepers, who do not allow culprit female moths to enter the colony, by reducing the size of the entrance gate. The bee keeper should be skilled enough to remove the caterpillars and keep the hive clean by removing debris consisting of gnawed pieces of comb, fallen wax scales, loose pollen pellets on the bottom board.

(ii) Strong populous, colonies are more liable to resist the pest attack. Weak colonies should be strengthened by adding brood frames and their queen replaced.

(iii) The hive resistance can be increased by keeping the hive tight fitting and by obliterating the cracks and crevices with a mixture or rosin and puttie used for fixing glass panes or moulding clay or bee wax.

(iv) All tile combs which the bees do not cover with brood should be removed particularly during dearth period.

(v) All space drawn combs should be kept in empty hive bodies in tiers and closed both at the bottom and top. The joints of hive bodies should be covered by gummed tape or wet clay and the stacks of 4 -5 hive bodies kept moth proof. The new stacks should be disinfected with sulphur fumes by burning sulphur over live charcoal at the rate of one ounce for 3.5 cubic feet space. Fumigation has to be repeated at fortnightly interval.

(vi) After fumigation, the combs should be stored in moth tight hive bodies and para-dichlorobenzene (PDB) crystals, 103/2 cub. feet, or naphthalene flakes should be spread over the top.

III. Vertebrates

Various kinds of animals like toads, frogs, snakes, lizards, bee-eating birds, monkey, badgers, bear etc are enemies of bees and bee colonies. The destructive role of these amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals is described below.

1. Amphibians

Amphibians like Hufa melanastictus (toads) and Rana limnoclzaris (frog) often attack and cause a substantial fall in colony population. The detection of this problem generally requires close observation. When toads and frogs are preying heavily on the bee colonies, they scatter in front of the hive entrance their faecal dark brown droppings. If these dry faecal deposits are spread apart with a twig or brush, the remains of bee parts can be seen, confirming the severe attack on bees by frogs and toads.

Damages

Continuous predation by toads and frogs, results in a loss of colony strength. Some colonies with moderate or relatively large worker populations can withstand the predation and subsequently recover their full strength. Weaker colonies are at considerable risk, The attacking patterns of toads and frogs are quite similar. On arriving at the colony, the amphibians wait in the vicinity of the hive entrance, preying on passing bees. Colonies close to the ground provide easy access to the predators, for which guard bees at the hive entrance are easy preys. If the attackers are small enough to squeeze through the hive entrance of a relatively weak colony, the outcome is of devastating bee colony.

Control

In some circumstances predation on honey bees by amphibians cannot be overlooked. The beekeeper should not look on the problem as a minor one. Some suggested control measures are:

(i) placing the hives on stands 40 -60 cm high is usually sufficient as a protective measure.

(ii) where large numbers of the predators tend to congregate near the colony, fencing it with fine mesh may be found necessary, and

(iii) other methods such as trapping, baiting or poisoning have not been recommended.

2. Reptiles

Reptiles like snakes, lizards, geckos etc. are the most commonly found damaging commercial apiaries. Gecko gecko (tokag) is about 35 cm in length, lizards measuring about 25 cm from head to tail. Smaller lizards, such as the Hemidactylus frebatus (gecko) often hide in the empty spaces between the outer and inner cover of the hive. It sometimes stray very close to the hive or accommodates itself comfortably between the lid and the hive body.

Damages

Arboreal reptiles such as many geckos and snakes can attack bees either near the hive entrance or at the limbs of flowering trees visited by foragers. Lizards accommodated inside the hive find very convenient in feeding on bees indefinitely and causes the sudden loss of the queen from weak colony. Lizards prefer dead bees, they will eat live ones as well. A worker bee, acting as a scavenger, will pounce on an old, lazy or sick bee and try to tear the victim's wings. While this action is in progress, the lizard will rush and lick both of them up with its sticky tongue.

Control

Some preventive measures are given here

(i) The beekeeper can do little to prevent the loss of foragers to the highly mobile arboreal reptiles, usually well hidden in the trees except to destroy as many of them as he can when he encounters them.

(ii) Placing the hive on stand 60 cm high from the ground or arranging hanging hives in the apiary, is relatively safe from the reptiles attacking.

(iii) Coating the legs of the stands with spent engine oil or grease can prevent the reptiles from climbing up to the hive entrance.

(iv) A well-kept bee yard, frequently mowed, without dense bushes, shrubs and tall grasses, that offer safe hiding for the predators, has less chances of suffering losses from reptiles.

(v) No salable chemical control of reptiles is available for use in an apiary.

3. Birds

Birds, which have been listed as attacking honey bees in India includes, Merops apiaster (bee-eater), Merops orientals, Dicrurus macrocercus (king crow), Cypselus spp (swifts), Lanius spp (shrikes) Picus spp(peckers), lndicatoridae sp. (honey guide), etc. They visit apiaries occasionally on cloudy days, and prey upon bees. The heavy traffic of bees flying in and out of the hives of commercial apiaries ovide an exceptional opportunity for insectivorous birds. Therefore, a large number of birds are attracted by this situation.

Damages

The level of damage caused by the apivorous birds varies considerably. An attack by a single bird or by a few together rarely constitutes a serious problem. When a relatively large flock descends upon a few colonies or an apiary, a substantial decline in the worker population may be observed. The degree of damage to the commercial apiaries by predatory birds depend upon the number of predators and intensity of the attack. The mere presence of a few predators in apiaries engaged in queen-rearing can inflict serious losses. The bee eaters sit on tree or telegraph wires near an apiary and pick the bees on the wings and do much harm. Sometimes as many as 40 bees have been found in the stomach of a bird.

Control

Some of the precautionary measures are described here.

(i) While beekeepers regard insectivorous birds as pests, sometimes serious, other branches of agriculture generally do not consider them as their enemies. In fact, birds that prey on insects are mostly considered to be beneficial for farming. They help in the control of insect pests. For this reason, therefore, no attempt is made to solve the apiary's bird problems by mass killing of the bird predators.

(ii) Where heavy predating birds on apiary bees tends to occur at fixed period, may be period of migration of birds, the most practical means of solving the problem is to avoid the birds, by relocating the apiary temporarily, until the birds migration period is over.

(iii) Sometimes scaring the predating birds away from apiaries by shooting at them with sound producing riffle is suggested.

4. Mammals

Many group of mammals can be considered as enemies of the honeybees. They, generally prey on colonies for honey and brood eating. Sometimes the attacks are purely accidental or the result of animal curiosity. Some important mammals causing damage to the bee colonies, specially to apiaries which are placed in or near forests and are not properly protected are monkeys, bear, badgers and man.

a. Monkey

In several parts of the country, monkeys have been found opening the hives and consuming honey and brood. As a result, frames are destroyed and colonies abscond. Scaring the monkey away is the only recommended control measure for apiary.

b. Bears

Bears are undoubtedly the most important mammalian bee pest. The best known bear pest are the black bear, Euarctos americanus.

Damages

Bears cause much damage to bee hives as they seek honey and brood. They repeatedly visit an apiary, destroying one or more hives with each visit. They tip hives over and tear them apart to get to brood and honey frames, which they carry a short distance away before feeding.

Control

Some important suggestion to prevent the bear's entry into the apiary are mentioned here.

(a) The best protection against damage is a sturdy electric fence around the apiary. Fences must be electric charged, and should be built before bear damage begins.

(b) Another effective control measures is to place bee hives on sturdy bear proof platforms elevated above bear height.

(c) Moving bee hives away once an apiary has been visited by a bear.

(d) Shoot and trap the bears but it has only limited success and must be done by government officials.

c. Badgers

Badgers are omnivorous, which means they eat almost everything, including bees. The honey badgers, Mellivora capensis, can easily tear a man made hive apart. It is found in western India and many other parts of the world.

Damages

The badgers, mostly destroy the hives, lying near the ground surface. They rarely cause any trouble to bee colonies. They rarely cause any trouble to bee colonies. They prefer to digging out wasps even when the badger's den is in the apiary. When it begins to damage the colony it takes only a few seconds to damage the bee colony completely. It is known as one of the most destructive enemies of honey bee colonies.

Control

The important suggestions to prevent the damage caused by badgers are given here.

(a) Fence the apiaries with great care, burying the fence at least 61 cm below the ground to prevent the badgers digging beneath it.

(b) Place the hive high in the air beyond the approach of the predator.

(c) Remove the badgers from the area of the apiary.

d. Man

The worst of all the enemies of the honey bees is man. In his attempt to improve his living conditions, man has caused and is still causing, great damage to existence of bees in nature. Man is clearing forest lands, clearing all bushes by burning, killing of bees by honey hunters, killing of bees by burning bushes, deliberately burning of bees so that man can live peacefully and spraying insecticides on bee pasturages are some of the unwanted activities of the man.

IV. Conclusion

Regular inspection of the bee colony and adopting preventive measures to ward of the pests is necessary for the successful maintenance of the apiary. Use of insecticides must be done judiciously as the honey bees also can get affected by the same. What is more important is a clear understanding of the pest problem for the bees. Once a systematic understanding is achieved each beekeeper finds his own way to control the pests.

Mealybug: Biology and control

Vaughn M. Walton
ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij, Stellenbosch

Mealybug (Planococcus ficus) is one of the key pests affecting vines in South Africa. The last two seasons favourable climatic conditions urged viticulturists to focus on this pest once more. To control the mealybug successfully, a thorough knowledge of the insect’s biology is required. In this article an attempt is made to shed light on the biology of mealybug and possible control strategies will be recommended.

Biology and Life cycle The rate of development of mealybug is directly dependent on environmental temperature. Eggs are laid in egg-sacs consisting of a mass of wax threads. Crawlers hatch after 7-10 days at an average temperature of 25°C (Fig.1).

Crawlers cast their skins to become 2nd and 3rd instar larvae (nymphs), while third instar larvae cast their skins to become adult females. After mating, the egg-sac develops and the female starts laying up to 750 eggs at a time. Damage is only caused by the female mealybug. She is more visible than the male, since the latter only lives between one and three days. The female feeds with sucking mouthparts and nutrients are extracted from the plant, while honeydew is excreted.

The male mealybug causes no damage as it has no feeding mouthparts. The only difference between the lifecycle of the two sexes is that in the case of the male, second instar larvae spin a cocoon in which the third instar larvae, pre-pupae and pupae develop. Adult winged males then appear from the cocoon. In summer mealybugs can complete their lifecycle in 3 to 4 weeks, causing populations to develop rapidly under favourable conditions.

Seasonal occurrence

In winter mealybugs hide beneath loose bark and in cracks on the trunks of vines (Whitehead, 1957). It was recently found that mealybug can also hibernate on vine roots (Fig. 2) and weeds (Fig. 5).

In winter they continue to feed on vine sap and lay eggs. Due to the low environmental temperature the lifecycle is very slow. As soon as temperatures start rising in spring and early summer, crawlers emerge from below the bark and cracks in search of the new growth with its higher nutrient concentrations. Crawlers settle on new leaf and shoot growth where they develop, mate and multiply. In January/February these populations are at their highest. Mealybugs then move to the bunches where the nutrients are increasing. Here they feed mainly on the bunch and berry stems. In late summer and autumn nutrients start moving to the roots from the leaves and stems (Conradie, 1985) and the downward migration of mealybugs takes place once again.

Symptoms and possible damage

Mealybugs excrete sticky honeydew on which sooty mildew (a fungus) grows. Affected bunches can be rejected in the case of table grapes and downgraded by wine cellars. When mealybug infestation is serious, browning and wilting of leaves may occur, as well as early shedding. The latter, as well as mealybugs feeding on vines, can result in loss of nutrients which may cause weakening of the vines (Fig. 3).

High infestations may result in desiccation of bunches, making them totally unmarketable (Fig. 4).

Repeated serious infestations can cause individual vines to die. Furthermore, while early shedding of leaves can cause sunburn damage to grapes, mealybug is also a vector of leafroll virus.

Integrated control

With integrated control, chemical, biological and cultivation methods are used in conjunction with each other. Each method contributes to the total control strategy. In an integrated programme various aspects should be considered to ensure an environmentally friendly, yet effective end result.

Integrated mealybug control may be implemented in the planning phase, even before planting. Factors that could play a role are cultivar differences and macro- as well as micro-climatic conditions.

Certain cultivars are more susceptible to mealybug than others and are indicated in Table 1 (Le Roux, 1996).

Before planting a new vineyard, the history of mealybug infestation in the area should be ascertained, especially if one of the more susceptible cultivars is being considered. If high average temperatures occur in a specific area, there is a bigger chance of mealybug problems. Favourable micro-climates, e.g. slopes that get excessive northerly sun, may also occur in certain blocks and encourage mealybug infestation.

a) Monitoring

It is of the utmost importance that a vineyard which is regularly plagued by mealybug should be monitored for the pest early in the season. By regular monitoring, the development of a problem may be predicted and possible control strategies implemented. An early indication of mealybug is the presence of ants. Certain weeds (as indicated below) have roots that may be checked for the presence of mealybug. These observations may serve as early warning signs. At least twenty vines, evenly distributed over a block of one hectare, must be monitored. Later in the season mealybug infested vines are more visible – they are covered in honeydew and sooty mildew and ants are usually present. In the late summer early shedding of leaves and desiccated bunches are further symptoms. In winter sooty mildew and sometimes even ants are already visible on infested vines. Infested vines should be marked throughout the season, in the course of pruning and vine preparation and also during harvesting. Vines that are marked make it easier to control mealybug accurately and effectively. Once monitoring has been done, a decision can be taken as to which control strategy should be followed.

b) Weed control
Before considering any other means of control, the first step is to control weeds. During the past season it was found that various weeds may serve as hosts for mealybug.

Mealybug occurs on the roots of the following weeds (For illustrations of weeds refer to Fourie et al., 1996) :

• Common blackjack (Bidens pilosa)
• Khaki weed (Tagetes minuta)
• Small mallow (Malva parviflora)
• Flax-leaf fleabane (Conyza bonariensis)
• Black nightshade (Solanum nigrum)
• Thornapple (Datura stramonium)
• Sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus)
• Musk Herons Bill (Erodium moshantum)
• White goosefoot (Chenopodium album)

A correlation has been found between the occurrence of these weeds and mealybug problems in vines. The best method of control is the planting of cover crops as recommended by Fourie et al. (1997). Long flowering cover crops that do not host mealybug may reduce ant problems, may help to reduce the forming of dust, may serve as supplementary nutrition for natural enemies and may bind nitrogen. Weeds may also be controlled physically (shrub beaters) and chemically (herbicides) (Fourie et al., 1996). Weeds have to be controlled from early in the season, since they act as access routes to the vine for ants and do not contribute much to the quality of the soil. Ant control is impossible if weeds grow into the vines.

c) Ant control
Effective ant control is a prerequisite for mealybug control since ants protect mealybug against its natural enemies. Ueckermann (1998) found the most effective means of ant control to be circular spraying around the trunk. This method of control is also more environmentally friendly than chemical treatments on the soil. The purpose of this application method is to keep ants out of the vines, but still allow them on the soil surface. Here ants may act as predators of beetle, fruit fly and moth larvae and pupae. At the moment chlorpyrifos EC is the only registered pesticide against ants (Nel et al., 1999). Chlorpyrifos has also been tested at 41ml/L (not a registered concentration) with reasonably good results (Ueckermann, 1998). Trunk treatments for ants should be dependent on ant activity. Usually ants become more active from October onwards if mealybug is present.

d) Natural enemies and biological control
Natural enemies can only impact on mealybug control if prior practices have been implemented. There is worldwide resistance to the use of insecticides. South African wine farmers therefore have to limit the use of chemical products to the absolute minimum. In future the role of natural enemies will consequently increase. Research indicates that if integrated control is applied correctly, these natural enemies can control mealybug successfully. For this reason it is essential to recognise natural enemies in the vineyard and surroundings before considering the use of chemical products.

The most common natural enemies of mealybug include the parasitic wasp which plays an important role in most vineyards. The most important parasitic wasps are Anagyrus sp. (Fig. 6A), Leptomastix dactylopii (Fig. 6B), and Coccidoxenoides peregrinus (Fig.6C).

These insects eliminate mealybug populations by laying their eggs in the host. The parasite eggs develop in the body cavity of the mealybug. The host is eventually killed when the parasite engulfs the body cavity and hatches. Coccidoxenoides peregrinus is being bred on a large scale at Nietvoorbij and is then set free in trial blocks. Results obtained over the past two seasons are very promising and in future C. peregrinus can possibly be bred co-operatively and released to control mealybug. However, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether these insects are indeed present in vineyards. It is possible, nevertheless, to notice mummies of parasitised mealybug with the naked eye (Fig. 7).

Predatory beetles also occur in vineyards early in the season. The most dominant beetles include Nephus quadrivittatus (Fig. 6D) and Nephus bineavatus (Fig. 6E). These beetles eat various stages of mealybug.

d) Chemical control
This method of control should be seen as the last resort for mealybug control, since no insecticides are environmentally friendly. The substances mentioned below are organophosphates that are poisonous to people, cattle, birds, fish, natural enemies and bees. Since mealybug occurs in random spots in vineyards, an attempt should be made to give spot treatments in order to reduce the impact on the ecosystem.

Certain products are only applied in the growing season, while others are used both in winter and the growing season. Dosages (per 100l water) also differ, depending on the growth stage. Dormant treatments (before the new growth begins) should only be applied if more than 5% infestation occurs. This reduces hibernating mealybug populations to such an extent that natural enemies can control mealybug effectively the next season. Routine dormant spraying should be avoided. Try to spray only the vine that has been marked and the two vines on either side with hand-held spray guns and a high pressure pump. Atomiser sprays do not give sufficient coverage. The following chemical products and application methods are still being used at present (Nel et al., 1999; Vermeulen, 1999):

• 1.Chlorpyrifos EC (480g/l) at 200ml/100l is recommended twice, 14 days apart, prior to budding. After budding there are problems with phytotoxicity on young shoots and leaves. Chlorpyrifos at this dosage also suppresses the Argentine and Cocktail ant.
• 2.Profenofos EC (500g/l) at 100ml/100l is also recommended twice,14 days apart, prior to budding. Thorough drenching is required.
• 3.Protiofos EC (960 g/l) at 50ml/100l is recommended once before budswell. A safety period of 100 days must be maintained, however.

During the growing season the following chemical products and application methods are allowed (Nel et al., 1999; Vermeulen, 1999):

• 1.Chlorpyrifos EC (480g/l) is recommended at 75ml/100l from four weeks after budding up to 28 days before the harvest. Take note of the dosage, higher dosages will result in phytotoxicity on leaves.
• 2.Dichlorvos EC (1000g/l) is recommended at 75 ml/100l up to 7 days before harvest. This treatment is only supplementary to winter treatments.
• 3.Dimethoate EC (400g/l) is recommended at 125ml/100l up to 28 days before harvest.
• 4.Formothion EC (250g/l, 330g/l) is recommended at 150ml/100l up to 10 days before harvest.
• 5.Methidathion EC (420g/l) is recommended at 50ml/100l up to 8 days before harvest. This treatment is prescribed as a late corrective one-off treatment.
• 6.Mevinphos SL (500g/l) is recommended from 37,5-45 ml/100l up to 7 days before harvest.

e) Post-harvest spraying
Post-harvest spraying is not recommended, since this is the period when the populations of natural enemies, which are a lot more susceptible to insecticides than mealybug, are at their highest. Spraying at this stage interferes with biological control for the next season. If vines deteriorate, and early shedding of leaves occurs, the infested vines only can be sprayed.

f) Further guidelines

If a decision to use chemical control is taken, the following guidelines may be followed in order to interfere as little as possible with biological control of mealybug:

Apply the minimum amount of chemical products per season. If full cover has to be achieved with spraying, products that degrade rapidly (withdrawal period of 7-10 days) are recommended. In old vines loose bark around the main trunk and neck may be removed so that penetration of the insecticide will be more effective and more mealybugs killed. For ant and snoutbeetle control, synthetic pyretroids are recommended for trunk spraying instead of soil or full cover spraying. With monitoring and correct application no more than two trunk sprays per season are required. With snoutbeetle control, full cover spray with synthetic pyretroids (withdrawal periods of 28 days and longer) should be avoided. Rather apply fruit fly bait droplets than a full cover spray. Chemical control for budmite should only be applied if bud analysis at the time of pruning indicate this to be necessary.

Planting suitable cover crops has several advantages. It limits dust forming, which decreases natural enemies efficiently. It provides certain natural enemies with alternative nutrition and shelter. It benefits weed control and improves soil quality. Attempt to establish cover crops that flower early and for a long time during the season, thereby giving natural enemies an early advantage in the season.

In conclusion

Mealybug remains one of the key pests in the viticultural industry. To address this problem, five projects are currently registered with ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij, viz.:

• Mass breeding of natural enemies of mealybug
• Integrated control of mealybug in vineyards
• Bio-testing of insecticides on natural enemies of mealybug
• Determination of life-span tables of mealybug and an important natural enemy
• Determination of the economic threshold values of mealybug

With these projects an attempt is being made to develop effective and environmentally friendly control strategies against mealybug.

Further queries about mealybug or its natural enemies may be addressed to Vaughn Walton at Tel.: 021 809 3167, Fax: 021 809 3002, or e-mail: vaughn@nietvoor.agric.za.

Literature references

Annecke, D.P. & Moran, V.C. 1982. Insects and mites of cultivated plants in South Africa. Butterworths, Durban/Pretoria.

Conradie W.J. 1985. Nitrogen nutrition of the grapevine (Vitis vinifera spp.). Ph.D., University of Stellenbosch.

Fourie, J.C. 1996. Uitkenning en chemiese beheer van belangrike onkruide in Wingerde van Suid-Afrika. Nooitgedacht Pers, Kaapstad.

Fourie, J.C., Louw, P.J.E., & Agenbach, G.A. 1997. The effect of different cover crop species and cover crop management practices on the available N and N-status of young Sauvignon blanc vines on a sandy soil in Lutzville. Abstract, South African Society for Enology and Viticulture Congress, 27-28 November 1997, Cape Town.

Le Roux, P. 1996. Die chemiese beheer van wingerdwitluis, in Wingerdwitluis paneelbespreking, SAWWV – Kongres, Kaapstad, 8 November 1996.

Nel, A., Krause, M., Ramautar, N. & Van Zyl, K. 1999. A guide to the control of plant pests. Directorate: Agricultural Production Input, National Department of Agriculture, Republic of South Africa.

Prinsloo, G.L. 1984. An illustrated guide to the parasitic wasps associated with citrus pests in the Republic of South Africa. Department of Agriculture Science bulletin, No. 402.

Ueckermann, P. 1998. Ant control in vineyards. Wynboer Tegnies 105: 8-9.

Vermeulen, A.K. 1999. A Guide to the use of Registered Fungicides and Pesticides against Grapevine Diseases and Pests: Wine Grapes. ARC-Fruit Vine and Wine Research Institute, Private Bag X5026, Stellenbosch, 7599, South Africa.

Whitehead, V.B. 1957. A study of the predators and parasites of Planococcus citri (Risso) (Homoptera) on vines in the Western Cape Province, South Africa. M.Sc. thesis, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa.

Source: http://www.wynboer.co.za

NEEM OIL FOR PESTS

It seems like no matter what time of the year, insects abound, but there is a great organic solution available to keeping bugs in check.
Of course good gardening practices and proper crop rotation help, but sometimes you need a helping hand to keep your plants safe.
The neem tree, which has insecticidal properties and is native to India and Africa, produces seeds that have been used to repel insects and pests in stored grains and in gardens and homes for years.
Today, the extract of the neem tree seed is the active ingredient in Neem-Away Insect Spray. Neem-Away suppresses an insect’s desire to feed and disrupts its hormonal balance so it dies before molting.
Field tests have shown Neem-Away to be effective against a wide range of insects from aphids and caterpillars to corn borer and squash bugs. Neem-Away will not harm beneficial insects such as lady beetles and lacewing.
Neem oil can be used on a broad range of insects on vegetables, fruits and nuts, flowers, trees and shrubs.
Apply when pests first appear to prevent damage. Repeat every 7-10 days as needed; regular spraying increases its effectiveness. 

Source: http://www.weekendgardener.net

Control of moths in stored grains

The Angoumois grain moth is the most serious pest injurious to rice, both in the field and storage.

This moth also attacks other cereals like maize, wheat and sorghum.

The infestation may reach serious levels before the grains are transported to the storage godowns resulting in around 25 per cent loss in weight and seed viability.

Internal pest

The larva is an internal borer of the whole grain, feeding on the starchy part. Severely infested material emits an unpleasant smell and looks unhealthy in appearance.

Grains are often covered with scales shed by the moths. The grains are practically hollow and filled with larval excreta and other refuse making it unfit for consumption.

The adult is a small, straw coloured moth. The female can lay an average of 150 eggs on unhusked paddy grains.

They hatch in a week’s period. Newly hatched caterpillar is yellowish white in colour with a brown head capsule. It soon bores into the grain and feeds on its contents.

Larval stage lasts for about three weeks. Before pupation, the larva constructs a silken cocoon in the cavity made during feeding and turns into reddish brown pupa.

After a period of 4-7 days, the adult emerges. Entire life cycle is completed in 30-35 days.

Several generations are completed in a year. Adults are short-lived and can be seen flying about in large numbers in storage bags and on the surface of grains.

Management

— Drying the grains under sun for three days to reduce moisture content below 12 per cent is suggested.

— The jute bags to be used for storing grains have to be dipped in insecticidal solution of fenitrothion 50EC at 5ml/20 liters of water.

— Application of dichlorvos (DDVP) 76SC is recommended on the surface of stored jute bags by dissolving 7ml/lit. of water and the spray solution is sprayed at three lit/100 sq.m.

— Male moths can also be caught in sticky traps baited with female sex pheromone.

Mr. Jayaraj (Author)

About Author:

J. Jayaraj, associate prof and R.K. Murali Baskaran Professor & Head, Dept of Entomology, Agricultural College and Research Institute, Madurai 625 104, email: vu2jrj@rediffmail.com, phone: 0452- 2422956 Extn: 214

Source of Article:The Hindu

Management of Thrips in Garlic

Garlic is widely used as a condiment in Indian cuisine, especially for its medicinal properties.

It is grown in Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Utter Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and Tamil Nadu (Nilgiris and Kodaikanal hills).

Among the insect pests, the onion thrips, Thrips tabaci is a major one injuring garlic.

Damage symptoms

Both nymphs and adults cause injury to the plants by sucking the vital leaf sap.

They remain in dense concentrations at leaf bases and whorls and feed by lacerating the tissues and imbibing the oozing cell sap.

The infestation develops a spotted appearance on the leaves, subsequently turning into silvery white blotches. The leaf tips fade and the basal portions get blighted and distorted from tip downwards and finally the plant dries up. The affected plants yield less, with small sized bulbs.

Adults are slender, yellowish brown and measure about 1mm in length and have narrow fringed wings.

Eggs are laid singly in tender leaves by making slits with sharp ovipositors by the females.

A single female lays 40-50 eggs which hatch after 4-9 days. The entire life cycle is completed in 11-21 days. There are more than ten generations per year. The pest occurs on garlic from November to May and migrates to other crops from June.

Management

Varieties with open type growth and circular leaf structure are not preferred by thrips.

Tolerant varieties of Garlic viz. G-2, G-19, LCG-1, Ooty-1 may be utilised for cultivation.

Higher doses of nitrogenous fertilizers and close planting should be avoided.

Clean cultivation, regular hoeing and flooding of infested field will check the thrips population.

Insect predators like green lacewing fly and tiny ladybird beetles check the population of this pest.

Application of profenofos or malathion 0.05 per cent, methyl demeton 0.025 per cent , monocrotophos 0.036 per cent, formothion 0.025 per cent, dimethoate 0.03 per cent, carbaryl 0.1 per cent or phorate 10G at 10kg/hectare could control the pest.

Mr.Jayaraj (Author)

About Author:

J. Jayaraj, associate prof and R.K. Murali Baskaran Professor & Head, Dept of Entomology, Agricultural College and Research Institute, Madurai 625 104, email: vu2jrj@rediffmail.com, phone: 0452- 2422956 Extn: 214

Source of Article: