Study of bioecological features of the lima bean pod borer Etiella zinckenella Tr. and evaluation of the effectiveness of entomopathogenic biopreparations in protecting soybean from this pest

Soybean is the most important protein and oilseed crop of world agriculture, grown in more than 80 countries. The purpose of the present research was to study the bioecological features of lima bean pod borer and the biological efficacy of entomopathogenic biopreparations. The studies were carried out on soybean crops of mid-season ripening varieties Vilana, Vilana Beta and Veda. The studied preparations were Biostop, L, Akkar, L; Bioslip BV, L; Lepidocid, SC. The damage to beans by the pest was recorded in the period from the beginning of bean formation to full seed ripening, for which 100 beans were sampled from different tiers three times. The production evaluation was carried out on an area of   10 hectares twice using the preparation Akkar, L. The timing of treatment was determined by catching lima bean pod borer males with pheromone traps. It was found that the greatest harm to the crop was caused by caterpillars of the second and third generation of the pest beginning from the first ten days of August until the end of soybean vegetation. Lima bean pod borer begins to damage soybeans from the lower tier with further colonization of the middle and upper tiers, while the age composition of the caterpillars change from younger, middle, to older. It was established that the biological efficiency of biopreparations lima bean pod borer, on average over two years, was as follows: Bioslip BV, L – 65.1 – 68.8%; Akkar, L – 77.5– 80.6%; Biostop, L – 71.9 – 74.1%, Lepidocide, SC – 72.0 – 73.0%. Production tests with the biopreparation Akkar, L showed that it effectively suppressed the number and harmfulness of the lima bean pod borer during soybean ripening. As of 19.08.2023, the percentage of bean harmfulness by caterpillars in the control option was 14.6% per 100 beans, in the experimental one – 2.1% per 100 beans, in 2024 it was 9.4% – 1.8% per 100 beans, respectively.

1. Ain Q., Mushtaq W., Shadab M., Siddiqui M.B. Allelopathy: an alternative tool for sustainable agriculture // Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants. 2023. Vol. 29. N 4. P. 495–511. DOI: 10.1007/s12298-023-01305-9.

2. Adedayo A.A., Musser R., Aanaenson M., Babalola O.O. The biochemical and molecular mechanisms of plants: a review on insect herbivory // Plant Signaling and Behavior. 2025. Vol. 20. N 1. P. 2439248. DOI: 10.1080/15592324.2024.2439248.

3. Lee S.T., Li C., Davis J.A. Predator-Pest Dynamics of Arthropods Residing in Louisiana Soybean Agroecosystems // Insects. 2022. Vol. 13. N 2. P. 154. DOI: 10.3390/insects13020154.

4. Reichert M.B., Schneider J.R., Wurlitzer W.B., Ferla N.J. Impacts of cultivar and management practices on the diversity and population dynamics of mites in soybean crops // Experimental and Applied Acarology. 2024. vol. 92. N 1. P. 41–59. DOI: 10.1007/s10493-023-00862-8.

5. Menger J.P., Ribeiro A.V., Potter B.D., Valmorbida I., Hodgson E.W., Knodel J.J., Koch R.L. Lack of Evidence for Fitness Costs in Soybean Aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) With Resistance to Pyrethroid Insecticides in the Upper Midwest Region of the United States // Journal of Economic Entomology. 2022. Vol. 115. N 4. P.1191-1202. DOI: 10.1093/jee/toac096.

6. Gao B., Yang K., Tian Y., Bai B., Tian Z., Liu J. Adaptability of the Soybean Aphid Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae) to Temperature and Photoperiod in a Laboratory Experiment // Insects. 2024. Vol. 15. N 10. P. 816. DOI: 10.3390/insects15100816.

7. Cao L.J., Guan T.B., Chen J.C., Yang F., Liu J.X., Jin F.L., Wei S.J. Chromosome-level genome assembly of the two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae // Scientific Data. 2024. Vol. 11. N 1. Р. 798. DOI: 10.1038/s41597-024-03640-2.

8. Hirata K., Kudo K., Amano T., Kawaguchi M. Effects of the novel acaricide acynonapyr on the calcium-activated potassium channel // Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology. 2024. Vol. 204. Р. 106074. DOI: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2024.106074.

9. Shumate S., Haylett M., Nelson B., Young N., Lamour K., Walsh D., Bradford B., Clements J. Using targeted sequencing and TaqMan approaches to detect acaricide (bifenthrin, bifenazate, and etoxazole) resistance associated SNPs in Tetranychus urticae collected from peppermint fields and hop yards // PLoS One. 2023. Vol. 18. N 3. Р. e0283211. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283211.

10. Todd J.C., Stewart L.R., Redinbaugh M.G., Wilson J.R. Soybean Aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) Feeding Behavior is Largely Unchanged by Soybean Mosaic Virus but Significantly Altered by the Beetle-Transmitted Bean Pod Mottle Virus // Journal of Economic Entomology. 2022. Vol. 115. N 4. P. 1059–1068. DOI: 10.1093/jee/toac060.

11. Pozebon H., Marques R.P., Padilha G., O Neal M., Valmorbida I., Bevilaqua J.G., Tay W.T., Arnemann J.A. Arthropod Invasions Versus Soybean Production in Brazil: A Review // Journal of Economic Entomology. 2020. Vol. 113. N 4. Р. 1591–1608. DOI: 10.1093/jee/toaa108.

12. Mou D.F., Kundu P., Pingault L., Puri H., Shinde S., Louis J. Monocot crop-aphid interactions: plant resilience and aphid adaptation // Current opinion in insect science. 2023. Vol. 57. P. 101038. DOI: 10.1016/j.cois.2023.101038.

13. Muraro D.S., Gonçalves T.M., Amado D., Lima M.F., Popham H.J.R., Marçon P.G., Omoto C. Baseline Susceptibility and Cross-Resistance of HearNPV in Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Brazil // Insects. 2022. Vol. 13. N 9. P. 820. DOI: 10.3390/insects13090820.

14. Carpane P.D., Llebaria M., Nascimento A.F., Vivan L. Feeding injury of major lepidopteran soybean pests in South America // PLoS One. 2022. Vol. 17. N 12. P. e0271084. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271084.

15. Ismailov V.Ya., Pushnya M.V., Rodionova E.Yu., Snesareva E.G., Komantsev A.A., Tsygichko A.A. Possibility of using biological products and biologically active substances against dominant soybean pests. Dostizheniya nauki i tekhniki agropromyshlennogo kompleksa = Achievements of Science and Technology of AIC, 2021, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 22–28. (In Russian). DOI: 10.24411/0235-2451-2021-10403.

16. Bueno A.F., Panizzi A.R., Hunt T.E., Dourado P.M., Pitta R.M., Gonçalves J. Challenges for Adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM): the Soybean Example // Neotropical Entomology. 2021. Vol. 50. N 1. P. 5–20. DOI: 10.1007/s13744-020-00792-9.

17. Rowen E.K., Pearsons K.A., Smith R.G., Wickings K., Tooker J.F. Early-season plant cover supports more effective pest control than insecticide applications // Ecological Applications. 2022. Vol. 32. N 5. Р. e2598. DOI: 10.1002/eap.2598.

18. Rios-Díez J.D., Meriño-Cabrera Y., Silva-Junior N.R., de Almeida Barros R., Aguilar de Oliveira J., Josué de Oliveira Ramos H., Goreti de Almeida Oliveira M. Novel proteinase inhibitor from the hemolymph of soybean pest Anticarsia gemmatalis (lepidóptera: Noctuidae): Structural modeling and enzymatic kinetic // Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology. 2022 Vol. 109. N 3. Р. e21864. DOI: 10.1002/arch.21864.