Studies on Efficacy of Eco-Friendly Insecticide Obtained from Plant Products Against Aphids Found on Tomato Plant

  • S. Dubey
  • S. Verghese P.
  • D. Jain
  • Nisha


A number of synthetic pesticides have been used for the control of aphids in agriculture, but increasing public concerns over their adverse effects on the environment have required more environmentally friendly methods for pest management. Tomato is one of the most consumed and widely grown vegetable crops in the world, but their yield is suppressed by the diseases like tomato yellow leaf (TYL) caused by aphids. Aphids are the most common insects found on tomato plants. Aphids suck sap and juice from the new growth on tomato plants, causes wilting, loss of vigor and distorts the shape of the plant, and leave a characteristic sticky excrement called honeydew the leaves will have sticky shiny spots on them when honeydew is present. Aphids may even transmit viral diseases from one plant to another like tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) and tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) and tomato yellow top. Aphids can be significantly reduced by the application of soap based insecticide containing Pyrethroid which is eco-friendly in nature as pyrethroid is obtained from the extract of Chrysanthemum plant. This insecticidal spray of potassium laurate and pyrethroid has reduced immensely the disease on tomato plant named tomato yellow leaf (TYL) spread by aphids .Hence an attempt has been made to develop an eco friendly economical product for integrated pest management strategy.


Tomato Plant Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus Tomato Yellow Leaf Pest Management Strategy 
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.


  1. 1.
    B.A. Nault, J (III). Speese, D. Jolly and R.L. Groves; J. Crop Prot. 22 (2003) 505- 512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.C. Desai; Thesis, Gujarat Agric. Univ., Gujarat (India). 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    N.D. Gupta; Thesis Department of Plant Pathology, BSMRAU, Bangladesh. 2000. 77p.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    U.C. Singh, Singh Reeti and K.N. Nagaich; Entomology, 6(2) (1998) 181–183.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E.K. Chatzivassiliou, D. Peters and N.I. Katis; Phytopathology 92(2002) 603–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    E.K. Chatzivassiliou, D. Peters and N.I. Katis; J. Phytopathol. 11(2007) 699–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.K. Mac Intyre Allen, C.D. Scott-Dupree, J.H. Tolman and C. Ron Harris; J. Pest Manage. Sci. 61 (2005) 809–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    C.B. Gnadinger, I.E. Evans and C.S. Corl; Bulletin 1933. 401. 19 pp.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Keen; Du solala Table, 1988 (October). No. 166:21.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Dubey
    • 1
  • S. Verghese P.
    • 1
  • D. Jain
    • 1
  • Nisha
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ChemistrySt. John’s CollegeAgraIndia

Personalised recommendations