Bagworms (Lepidoptera: Psychidae) Pest Status in the Bastar Region of Chhattisgarh's Forest Trees

 

Satendra Kumar Induria¹, Arvind Agrawal²*

¹Department of Botany, Govt. J. Yoganandam Chhattisgarh College, Raipur-492 001.

²UGC-Malaviya Mission Teacher Training Centre, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur-492 010.

 

ABSTRACT:

The pest status of bagworm species on forest trees of Bastar region of Chhattisgarh. Pest status of bagworm species was inspected by stratified cluster sampling in all seven districts of Bastar regions the intensity of bagworm infestation was appraised by exercising five infestation categories, S0, S1, S2, S3, and S4 with increasing magnitude of infestation from no infestation to very high level of infestation. Level of infestation recorded above 90% in twenty two species out of which three species namely namely Anogeissus latifolia, Wall., Dalbergia paniculata, Roxb. and Flacourtia indica, (Burm F.) Merr. of family Combretaceae, Fabaceae, and Salicaceae respectively showed cent percent infestation under S4 category with very high level of infestation. Thirty five (35) species recorded high level of infestation under S3 category are between 60.1% and 90%. The marginal infestation was recorded in nine (9) species under the S1 category between 0.1% and 30%. Two other species of Ficus bengalensis, Linn., Ficus virens, Aiton belonging to family Moraceae showed nil (0%) infestation under the S0 category. Result of study meticulously demonstrates that, 77.3% of the total forest tree species in Bastar region of Chhattisgarh are infested with bagworm (Lepidoptera: Psychidae). The level of infestation of S3 category of 47.94% was recorded in 35 species, with record of 30.13%, 12.32 % and 8.21% in S4, S1 and S2 level of infestation, whereas only 2.73% were recorded in S0 with no infestation. The magnitude of infestation uncovers the capability of Psychids to degrade the green cover that would potentially cause cascading impact to forest ecosystem. The biodiversity indices complimented each other and revealed that the Sukma (SU) had the maximum biodiversity apropos the tree species with the total infestation. To conclude, the study of pest status of bagworm moths in forest trees of Bastar region is required to catalogue the bagworm species and to further study on spatial and temporal dynamics related to this insect pest.

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

The forest has always provided resources and energy to support life forms. According to the Indian Forest Act of 1927, a forest is "an area covered largely with trees and undergrowth." However, the definition of a tree in clause (1.2) of the IFA of 1927 includes palms, bamboo stumps, brush-wood, and canes in plain view. According to reports, a number of bagworm species, including Eumeta variegata (Snellen), are seriously reducing the amount of green cover in forests in the Oriental tropics (Holloway et al., 1987). Tectona grandis L. (Lamiaceae), Terminalia catappa L. (Combretaceae), Eucalyptus sp. (Myrtaceae), and Eriobotrya japonica (Rosaceae) have all been found to be polyphagous bagworms (Gara et al., 1990; Rhainds et al., 2008; Rhainds and Sadof, 2009). However, plants belonging to the following families have been reported to have suffered significant damage: Apocynaceae, Arecaceae, Betulaceae, Bignoniaceae, Aprifoliaceae, Casuarinaceae, Clusiaceae, Clombretaceae, Ebenaceae, Erythroxylaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Lamiaceae, Lauraceae, Fabaceae, Malpighiaceae, Malvaceae, Myrtaceae, Moraceae, Musaceae, Palmaceae, Pinaceae, Polygonaceae, Rhizophoraceae, Rosaceae, Rubiaceae, Rutaceae, Sapindaceae, Ulmaceae, Vochysiaceae, and Zygophyllaceae (Rhainds and La Rosa, 2010).

 

Cotes (1895) recorded five species of Psychidae on tea plants from North-East India, the first known record in India. Watt (1898) then reported eleven species, and then fourteen species (Watt and Mann, 1903) of Psychidae on tea from North-East India. Eumeta crameri (Westwood) in Acacia plantings in India (Pratap and Bhandari, 1987; Thangavelu and Ravindranath, 1985). Trees are severely impacted by bagworm-induced defoliation. Bagworm defoliation mostly caused trees to grow less and die back, which ultimately resulted in the trees dying partially or completely (Nair and Mathew, 1988). Nair and Mathew (1988) documented an outbreak in A. falcataria plantations as well as the distribution of insect pests throughout Kerala. For resources to be used sustainably, forest management is required. Insect pests are among the intruders that seriously harm and destroy ecological and economic diversity. The bagworm, an insect pest that is relatively new to forest management, has the ability to cause enormous harm. An attempt was made in this section to determine the bagworm's pest status in the forest trees of Chhattisgarh's Bastar area.

 

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

Survey Criteria to examine forest trees

Forest tree survey in the sample plot:

In line-transects, trees with girths greater than 10 cm at chest height or 4.5 feet (135 cm) above ground level were examined for bagworm pupae, larvae, and adults. Following careful examination of each tree for hanging pupae and active larval cases, a red ribbon with the infestation level tags (S0, S1, S2, S3, S4) was affixed to the host tree's trunk. On the spot, the botanical and local names of the host tree were noted. Every tree in the line transects was inspected, and the tagged red ribbon was unpinned from the tree trunk at the same time as the species tally mark was made.

 

Analysis of bagworm pest condition in forest trees

The bagworm pest status was examined in each of the seven districts of the Bastar regions. At each sampling site, 10 × 10 km2 grids were used to analyze the infestation of the bagworm species. Four 5 m x 250 m line-transects were laid in each grid to check forest trees for the pupae, larvae, and adult bagworm. Nair and Mathew (1992) and Agrawal and Pati (1995) developed a concurrently visual score system to Determine the percentage of infestation at each site. Using five infestation exercises, the severity of the bagworm infestation was evaluated. S0, S1, S2, S3, and S4 categories, ranging in severity from minimal infection to extremely high infestation (Table 1).

 

Table 1 Infestation criteria of bagworm

Infestation	Criterion	Infestation level
S0	No pupa	No infestation
S1	One pupa	Low level
S2	Two to ten pupae	Medium level
S3	More than ten pupae with marginal defoliation	High level
S4	Uncountable pupae with total defoliation.	Very high level

 

                                                                            TI

The intensity of infestation in species (%) =  ------- x 100

                                                                                N                                                      

 

and                                                                         TI = N-S₀

 

Where                    TI = Total infestation observed in species

     N = Sum of trees observed in the species

     S₀ = Sum of trees observed with no infestation.

 

Data Organization

The frequency of tree species infested with bagworm was tabulated under levels of infestation from S0 to S4. The names of the host species and the study site were recorded. The infestation intensity in the sample site for families and species was computed.

 

Calculation of infestation:

Infestation in sample site A (N) = (n^α)A + (n^β)A + (n^γ)A + (n^δ)A

 

Where,

                                                           A = Sample site

                                                           (N) = Infestation in sample site

     (n^α) = Infestation of trees in LT-α of sample site.

     (n^β) = Infestation of trees in LT-β of sample site

     (n^γ) = Infestation of trees in LT-γ of sample site

     (n^δ) = Infestation of trees in LT-δ of sample site.

 

Infestation in                        BsR- N = (N) {A₁ + A₂ + A₃ ……. A₁₀}

 

Where,

BsR-N = infestation in Bastar region

A = Sample site 1-10

 

Calculation of total infestation:

Total infestation in sample site         ti = (N) – S₀ of sample site

 

Where,

                    ti = Total infestation in sample site

                    S₀ = trees with no infestation in sample site

 

Total infestation BsR-TI = ti{A₁ + A₂ + A₃…….A₁₀}

      

Where,

                    BsR-TI = Total infestation in Bastar region

                            A = Sample site 1-10

                              ti = Total infestation in sample site

 

RESULTS:

A total of 4952 forest trees were surveyed during the research period and classified into five quantitative levels of infestation (Table 1) using the visual score assignment system (Agrawal, 1997; Nair and Mathew, 1992) for bagworms in Bastar forest trees. Infestation levels for the survey categories were 1524 (31%) trees in S3 (Fig. 3A), 339 (7%) trees in S4, 971 (19%) trees in S2, and 996 (20%) trees in S1, while 1122 (23%) trees were recorded under S0 level with no bagworm infestation (Fig. 3).

 

Fig. 1 A-H Field study of bagworm infestation in Bastar region

 

Fig. 2 I-P Field study of bagworm infestation in the Bastar region

 

74 forest tree species from 29 families were identified throughout the survey. Fabaceae had the highest species representation of these 29 families, with 20 species. Anacardiaceae and Rubiaceae had 8.11 percent (6 sp.), Combretaceae had 6.76 percent (6 sp.), Malvaceae and Moraceae had 5.41 percent (4 sp.), and Lamiaceae, Meliaceae, Phyllanthaceae, Rutaceae, Salicaceae, and Sapindaceae had 2.70 percent (2 sp.). But for Annonaceae, Apocynaceae, Arecaceae, Bignoniaceae, and Bixaceae, 1.35% (1 sp.) representation was noted. (Fig. 4) Myrtaceae, Oleaceae, Rhamnaceae, Sapotaceae, Ebenaceae, Lecythidaceae, Loganiaceae, Lythraceae, Burseraceae, Dilleniaceae, Dipterocarpaceae, and Simaroubaceae. With a total of 917 trees surveyed, Fabaceae was the region's main representative (Fig. 5). According to Fig. 6, 327 (45.1%) trees were classified as having a high level of infestation under S3, whereas 225 (31%), 148 (20.4%), and 24 (3.4%) trees were classified under S2, S1, and S4 categories.

 

In contrast to Ougeinia dalbergoides Benth. (Fabaceae), the species Dalbergia paniculata, Roxb. (Fabaceae) displayed a 100% infestation (Fig. 7). found the lowest percentage of bagworm infestation in the household (44%) (Table 2). Cassia fistula, Linn., Bauhinia malabarica, Roxb., Tamarindus indica, Linn., Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre, Acacia arabica., Dalbergia sisoo, Roxb., Acacia catacheau, Butea monosperma, (Lamk) Taub. Hardwickia binata, Roxb., Bauhinia purpurea, Linn., Acacia leucophloea, Willd., Albizzia lebbek, Benth., and Albizzia odoratissima, Benth. Albizzia procera, Benth., Pithecellobium dulce, Roxb., and Pterocarpus marsupium, Roxb. Benth., Dalbergia latifolia, Roxb., Bauhina variegata, Linn. Intensity of infestation recorded (Table 3) reveals bagworm infestation was ample in Myrataceae (93.9 %) subsequently (92.7 %) in Loganiaceae, (91.9%) in Rutaceae, (91.0 %) in Rhamnaceae, (90.1 %) in Sapotaceae, (90.1 %) in Dipterocarpaceae, (90.0 %) in Ebenaceae, (86.0%) in Lamiaceae, (83.3 %) in Apocynaceae, (79.1%) in Fabaceae, (75.7 %) in Combretaceae, (75.0 %) in Dilleniaceae, (74.3 %) in Annonaceae, (73.3 %) in Lythraceae, (72.2 %) in Anacardiaceae, (70.9 %) in Phyllanthaceae, (70.0 %) in Burseraceae, (67.8%) in Malvaceae, (67.0 %) in Bignoniaceae, (66.3 %) in Rubiaceae (64.7 %) in Lecythidaceae, (64.1%) in Salicaceae, (62.5 %) in Simaroubaceae, (57.5 %) in Arecaeae, (56.9 %) in Sapindaceae, (50.0 %) in Meliaceae, 30.0% (Fig. 8) in the Bixaceae, 5.3% in the Moraceae, and 0.0% in the Oleaceae. A total of 510 trees from the Anacardiaceae family were noted, with 138 (37.5%), 130 (35.3%), 99 (26.9%), and 1 (0.3%) classified according to S3, S1, S2, and S4 levels of infestation, respectively (Fig. 9). In the Rubiaceae family, out of 303 trees, 111 (55.2%), 40 (19.9%), 38 (18.9%), and 12 (6%) were categorized at S3, S1, S2, and S4 levels of infestation, respectively (Fig. 10). A total of 235 trees belonging to the Combretaceae were identified (Fig. 11). Of these, 102 (57.3%), 22 (30.3%), 54, and 12.4% were classified as S3, S1, and S2 trees, with no tree in the S4 level of infestation (Fig12).

 

A total of 124 trees belonging to the Malvaceae were identified (Fig. 13), of which 41 (33.06%) were in all S3, S1, and S2 levels of infestation, with no tree in S4 level of infestation, respectively. In contrast, of the 5 trees in the Moraceae, 4 (80%) and only 1 (20%) were classified in S3 and S2 levels of infestation, with no trees in S4 or S1 levels, respectively (Fig. 14). Of the 328 trees in the Lamiaceae family, 134 (40.8%), 99 (30.18%), 27 (80%), and 22 (8.2%) were classified as having infestations at the S3, S2, S1, and S4 levels. 7 trees (6.7%) had infection levels, compared to 4 trees (80%) and just 1 tree (20%) in Moraceae. While Phyllanthaceae recorded 230 trees, Meliaceae recorded 60 14 (23.3%), 7 (11.7%), and 2 (3.3%) S3, S2, and S1 trees in S4 level of infestation, respectively. S3 and S2 had 115 (50%) and 30 (13%) and 16 (7%), while S4 had 2 (0.9%). 111 trees were recorded by Rutaceae. 33 (29.7%), 25 (22.5%) S2, S3, S1 1 (0.9%) S4, and 43 (38.7%). S1 and S4 are absent from Salicaceae 39 15, (38.5%), 33 (25.6%), and S3. There were 65 trees in Sapindaceae, 27 (41.5%), and 7 (10.8%). Anogeissus latifolia, Wall., Dalbergia paniculata, Roxb., and Flacourtia indica (Burm F.) Merr. of the families Combretaceae, Fabaceae, and Salicaceae, respectively, exhibited 100% infestation under the S4 category with a very high infestation level, according to a species vice study that found over 90% infestation in twenty-two species. Under the S3 group, 35 species had high infestation levels ranging from 60.1% to 90%. A moderate degree of infestation Six (6) species were found to be under the S2 category, with infection rates ranging from 30.1% to 60%. Nine species had a small and isolated case of bagworm infection in the S1 category, ranging from 0.1% to 30% (Fig. 16). Other two species of Cochlospermum religiosum (L.) Alston and Ficus religiosa, Linn. belonging to family Bixaceae and Moraceae, respectively, recorded nil (0%) infection of S0 category, that is entirely free of bagworm. The region's dominant species (Table 4), including Madhuca indica, Gmel., Shorea robusta Gaertn, and Tectona grandis L., reported a high level of bagworm infestation of 90.1%. On the other hand, Strychnos potatorum (92.7%), Aegel marmelos, Corr. (95.2%), Dalbergia sisoo (94.3%), and Acacia catacheau (93.5%) Bagworm infection was extremely high in Linn., Butea monosperma (92.6%), Syzygium cumini (93.9%), Tamarindus indica (90.6%), Terminalia bellerica (90.2%), and Roxb. Other noteworthy species in the area include Wrightia tinctoria (83.3%), Bauhinia purpurea, Acacia arabica (85.7%), Anacardium occidentale (89.2%), and Diospyros melanoxylon (90%) The high level of bagworm infestation was also noted by Linn., Acacia leucorrhoea (81.8%), Terminalia arjuna (71.4), Mangifera indica (71.3%), and Lagerstroemia parviflora (73.3%). Table 4 provide a summary of the different plant species that were inspected for bagworm infestation, and Fig. 20 provides some representative examples of bagworm infestation.

 

The pest status of bagworms in the area has been uncovered by the current study (Fig. 23). A maximum of 1524 trees (30.8%) are infested at the S3 level, while 339 trees (6.8%) are infested at the S4 level. Of the trees that were recorded, 3830 (77.34%) had an infestation intensity (Fig. 24). are infested with bagworm at the S3 (39.8%) level, with the S1, S2, and S4 levels having infestation rates of 26%, 25.4%, and 8.85%, respectively. The study's findings clearly show that bagworm (Lepidoptera: Psychidae) infested 77.3% of the total forest tree species in Chhattisgarh's Bastar region (Fig. 28). A total of 35 species had an infestation level of 47.94% in the S3 category (Fig. 25), with records of 30.13% (22 sp.), 12.32% (9 sp.), and 8.21% (6 sp.) in S4, S1, and S2 levels of infestation, respectively. Conversely, in S0 with no infestation, only 2.73% (2 sp.) were found (Fig. 27).

 

1. DIVERSITY INDICES:

Descriptive statistics

The range of the Shannon-Weiner index (H) was 1.09 to 1.45. It was found that Sukma (SU) had the highest H, while Kapsi WB had the lowest. Because a higher H-value indicates greater species diversity, the Sukma site (Table 6) showed greater species diversity with bagworm infestation. 353 infested trees from 48 species were visible at the SU.

 

Shannon-Weiner index (H)

 

Alpha diversity

The mean species diversity in regions or habitats is known as alpha diversity, and it shows local species diversity as a function of sites or habitats. (Whittaker, 1972) scale. The Alpha diversity index for bagworm-infested trees at ten distinct sites is shown in Table 7. The WB had the lowest Alpha index (10.078) and SU had the highest (14.66).

 

Simpson's Diversity

The range of Simpson's diversity index (D) was 0.055 to 0.207. Bhanupratappur (EB) had the highest Simpson's diversity, while Sukma (SU) had the lowest (Table 8). Therefore, diversity decreases as Simpson's diversity (D) increases. According to Table 8, Simpson's diversity index (1/D) ranged from 4.838 to 18.238. SU had the highest recorded value, while EB had the lowest. Fig. 31 shows a site-by-site breakdown of Simpson's diversity index (1/D).

 

Species richness

Margalef Richness Index in Biodiversity (S) = (s - 1) / Log (n)

Where, s = Total Number of Species;

n = Total Number of Individuals in the Sample

 

The species richness of bagworm in the Bastar region varied from one site to another. The Maximum (18.2758) was in Sukma (SU), and the minimum (14.0607) was in Kapsi (WB).

 

Evenness (E)

Between the ten sites under study, the Evenness (E) ranged from 0.684 to 0.868. According to Table 11, KE had the highest E and EB had the lowest E. It suggests that KE is more even than Sukma, despite Sukma's greater diversity (Table 11). Heterogeneity was discordant and species dispersion was generally aggregated in the ten areas under study (Table 12; Fig. 33).

 

Cluster analyses

Based on the overall level of infestation in the sampling sites, cluster analyses showed two separate clusters (Table 13 and Fig. 34). The sampling locations, BI, EB, and WB, were the first cluster to exhibit the strongest similarities between them. BA, SK, KE, and NA were part of the second cluster (Table 13 and Fig. 34). The sites associated with clusters 1 and 2 seem to be different from those of SU, KA, and DA.

 

Table 2 Infestation percentage in Fabaceae species

 

Table 3 Infestation percentage in forest tree families

 

Table 4 List of forest trees species, family, and infestation (%)

 

Table 5 Descriptive statistics for all ten sites

 

Table 6 Shannon diversity indices for ten selected localities

 

Table 7 Alpha diversity indices for ten selected localities

 

Table 11 Summary of the diversity of tree species infested with bagworms in the Bastar region

 

Table 8 Simpson’s diversity indices for ten selected localities

 

Table 9 Species richness of trees infested with bagworms in Bastar region

 

Table 10 Species richness estimator, based on pooled samples

 

Table 12 Species distribution of the whole community

 

Table 13 Bray-Curtis Cluster Analysis

 

Table 14 Similarity Matrix

 

Fig. 3 [A] - Infestation level of bagworm in forest trees; [B] - Infestation percentage in forest trees surveyed in Bastar region

Fig. 4 Species representation of forest trees families infested with bagworms     Fig. 5 Infestation levels of Fabaceae

 

Fig. 6 Infestation percentage of Fabaceae	Fig. 7 Radar view of infestation percentage in Fabaceae species

 

Fig. 8 Infestation percentage in forest tree families in the Bastar region	Fig. 9 Infestation level in Aanacardiaceae and Rubiaceae
Fig. 10 Infestation percentage in Anacardiaceae and Rubiaceae	Fig. 11 Infestation levels in Combretaceae
Fig. 12 Infestation percentage in Combretaceae

 

Fig. 13 Infestation levels in Malvaceae and Moraceae	Fig. 14 Infestation percentage in Malvaceae and Moraceae
Fig. 15 Infestation percentage in Lamiaceae, Meliaceae, Phyllanthaceae, Rutaceae, Salicaceae, and Sapindaceae	Fig. 16 Infestation percentage in Myrtaceae, Loganiaceae, Rhamnaceae, Sapotaceae, Dipterocarpaceae, Ebenaceae, Apocynaceae, Dilleniaceae, Annonaceae, Lythraceae, Burseraceae, Bignoniaceae, Lecythidaceae, Simaroubaceae, Arecaceae, Oleaceae, and Bixaceae

 

Fig. 17 Infestation percentage in forest tree species in Bastar region	Fig. 18 Bagworm infestation: A- Ficus glomerata Wild plant, B- Punica granatum, Shorea robusta infested with bagworm, C-Fruiting Anacardium Occidentale infested with bagworm, D- Bagworms infestation in the leaf of Anacardium Occidentale
Fig. 19 Bagworm infestation: A-Diospyros melanoxylon plant, B- Diospyros melanoxylon leaf infested with bagworm, C-Leaf of Shorea robusta infested with bagworm, D- Bagworms infestation on Lagerstroemia praviflora	Fig. 20 Bagworm infestation: A-D Tectona grandis plant infested with bagworm
Fig. 21 Bagworm infestation: A-B Mangifera indica, C- Tectona grandis, D- Pupa on Mangifera indica nested for adult male moth emergence	Fig. 22 Bagworms infestation: A-Leaf of Psidium guajava, B- Infested branch of Acacia nilotica, C-Infested branch of Acaccia nilotica a closer view. D-Infested plant of Acaccia nilotica

 

Fig. 23 Bagworm infestation: A-B Larval instar in Shorea robusta (Sal) tree, C- Zizyphus mauritiana, D- Pupa in Shorea robusta	Fig. 24 Total forest tree infested with bagworm in Bastar region
Fig. 25 Total Infestation percentage in forest tree in Bastar region	Fig. 26 Infestation levels in tree species
Fig. 27 Infestation percentage in tree species	Fig. 28 Total infestation in forest trees of Bastar Region
Fig. 29 Total infestation in forest trees of Bastar Region	Fig. 30 Shannon Diversity
Fig. 31 Alpha diversity plot for tree species infested with bagworm species at ten randomly selected sites	Fig. 32 Simpson’s diversity (D) plot for bagworm species at ten randomly selected sites
Fig. 33 Species richness based on pooled samples harvested from 10 locations	Fig. 34 Species distribution of the whole community in the Bastar               region
Fig. 35 Bray-Curtis Cluster Analysis (Single-Link)

 

DISCUSSION:

The Bastar region is largely unspoiled and still has a variety of native species and tropical diversity. Insect pests pose a serious threat to the rich biodiversity found in tropical forests. According to Ellis et al. (2005), bagworms are insect pests that consume plant leaves, leaving only the large veins. The risk has increased due to bagworms' suitability and adaptability to the majority of tree species (Pati and Agrawal, 2000).

 

In the current study, 74 forest tree species from 29 families in the Bastar ecoregion were screened for bagworm pest status. In the Bastar region of Chhattisgarh, 77.3% of the forest trees were found to be infested overall. The severity of the bagworm (Lepidoptera: Psychidae) infestation was used to further categorize the overall infestation (Agrawal, 1997; Agrawal and Pati, 1995). In terms of infestation levels, we discovered 1524 (31%) trees in S3, 339 (7%) in S4, 971 (19%) in S2, and 996 (20%) in S1. A total of 74 forest tree species from 29 families were examined. The assumption of coverage of more than 50 families of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs is strengthened by the fact that only one family is documented as being free from infestation (Rhainds et al., 2009).

 

The severity of the infestation indicates that the Myrtaceae, Loganiaceae, Rutaceae, Rhamnaceae, Sapotaceae, Dipterocarpaceae, and Ebenaceae families had a 90% or higher bagworm infestation. Ten families—the Lamiaceae, Apocynaceae, Fabaceae, Combretaceae, Dilleniaceae, Annonaceae, Lythraceae, Anacardiaceae, Phyllanthaceae, and Burseraceae—subsequently showed increased infestation intensity, ranging from 70 to 90%. On the other hand, nine families with infestations ranging from 50 to 70% showed medium levels of infestation.

 

Rubiaceae, Lecythidaceae, Salicaceae, Arecaceae, Meliaceae, Bignoniaceae, Malvaceae, and Simaroubaceae. On the other hand, two families—Oleaceae and Moraceae—exhibited low infestation, or less than 30%. Bixaceae was the only family not infested.

Under the S4 category, which denotes a very high level of infestation, the species Anogeissus latifolia, Wall., Dalbergia paniculata, Roxb., and Flacourtia indica (Burm F.) Merr. of the families Combretaceae, Fabaceae, and Salicaceae, respectively, displayed a 100% infestation rate. Within the S3 category, 35 species had high infestation rates ranging from 60.1% to 90%. Six species with infestations ranging from 30.1% to 60% were found to have a medium level of infestation under the S2 category. Nine species were found to have a marginal and sparse bagworm infestation, falling within the S1 category, ranging from 0.1% to 30%. The other two species of the Bixaceae and Moraceae families, Cochlospermum religiosum (L.) Alston and Ficus religiosa, Linn., respectively, showed zero (0%) infestation of the S0 category, meaning they were completely free of bagworm.

 

Bagworm infestations were found in the following tree species: Anogeissus latifolia, Tectona grandis, Shorea robusta, Diospyros melanoxylon, Butea monosperma, Morinda tinctoria, Cassia fistula, Chloroxylon swietenia, Zizyphus mauritiana, Bauhinia malabarica, Buchanania Ianzan, Terminalia bellerica, Grewia tiliaefolia, Terminalia bellerica, Madhuca indica, Tectona grandis, Shorea robusta, and Diospyros melanoxylon. Infestation levels varied from 100 to 90%.

 

Western Anacardium, The Semecarpus anacardium, Pongamia pinnata, Wrightia tinctoria, Albizzia lebbek, Bauhinia purpurea, Acacia arabica, and Acacia leucophloea Albizzia odoratissima, Dillenia pentagyna, Lagerstroemia parviflora, Terminalia alata, and Miliusa tomentosa Collinus Cleistanthus, Binata Hardwickia, Arjuna Terminalia, Mangifera indica Marshupium Pterocarpus, The plant Mitragyna parviflora, Terminalia chebula, Boswellia serrata, Albizzia procera, Gardenia Latifolia, Xylocarpum Sterospermum, Indicus anthocephalus, Azadirachta indica, Retusa Bridelia, Arborea Careya, Dulce pithecellobium, The tree species that have bagworm infestations ranging from less than 90.0% to more than 60.0% include Bauhinia variegata, Adina cordifolia, Alianthus excelsa, Bombax ceiba, Casearia graveolens, and Dalbergia latifolia.

 

Caryota urens, Schleichera oleosa, Sapindus laurifolia, Kydia calycina, Ougeinia albergoides, Scherebera switeniodes, Sterculia urens, Wendlandia exserta, Sovamida febrifuga, Spondias Pinnata, Ficus glomerata, Lannea coromandelica, and Ficus virens were among the tree species with infestations ranging from less than 60.0% to 10.0%. Gmelina arborea (6.0%), Ficus bengalensis (1.7%), Cochlospermum religiosum (0.0%), and Ficus religiosa (0.0%) were the four remaining tree species with very low infestation intensity or none at all.

 

But in terms of the total number of trees, Shorea robusta, Tectona grandis, Mangifera indica, Cleistanthus collinus, and Pterocarpus marsupium were the top five infested tree species. The nationalized tree species, Madhuca indica and the first two, all had a high degree of infestation. The greatest number of Shorea robusta trees (1014) that were infested with bagworms was noted.

 

Numerous other species also reported high levels of bagworm infestation, including Butea monosperma, Syzygium cumini, Aegel marmelos, Dalbergia sisoo, Acacia catacheau, Strychnos potatorum, Terminalia bellerica, and Tamarindus indica. Previous studies have focused on the ornamental tree Delonix regia in Kerala, India; Acacia nilotica plantations in Tamil Nadu (Pillai and Gopi, 1990); and Paraserianthes falcataria and Terminalia catappa in Kerala (Mathew, 1989). These include cedars, arborvitae, junipers, and other landscape trees (Heather et al., 2014); pine Falcataria moluccana (Nair and Mathew, 1992); Tamarindus indica, Delonix regia, Syzygium cumini, Populus deltoides, Tectona grandis and Trema orientalis (Mathew and Nair, 1986) and Emblica officinalis (Haldhar and Singh, 2019; Mathew and Nair, 1986). The extent of the infestation reveals the Psychid's capacity to deteriorate the vegetation and WB had the lowest Shannon index, while SU had the highest. The greatest number of bagworm-infested species was found in the SU. Additionally, BI had 48 species with bagworm infestations. Every sampling location had at least 40 infested species, with the exception of WB and SK, which had an equal number of infested species (38). The sampling sites are completely even and have a comparable level of infestation richness. Between 14.06 and 18.28, the Margalef Richness Index's spread was extremely small. For EB and KE, the evenness index ranged from 0.684 to 0.868, respectively. Evenness was almost total in six of the ten sampling locations, with greater than 0.8 for the index. This suggests that among the ten sampling sites, the intensity of the bagworm infestation was extremely high. Biodiversity indices and basic observational data were complementary.

There were variations despite the diversity of the bagworm-infested tree species. The single-linked Bray-Curtis cluster analysis showed this. There were two main clusters overall. BI, EB, and WB were among the sampling sites in the first cluster. SK, NA, BA, and KE were the four sampling sites in the second cluster. In terms of the degree of bagworm infestation, the sampling sites SU, KA, and DA differed significantly from the two clusters mentioned above.

 

In summary, the Bastar region's tree species infestation by bagworms seemed concerning. Because of the bagworm infestation of the tree species in the area, it is imperative to investigate the rate of defoliation. Determining the harm done by bagworms to the medicinal plants in the Bastar region, which has significant economic potential, would also be crucial.

 

REFERENCES:

1.        Agrawal, A. (1997). Studies on Bagworm (Lepidoptera: Psychidae) of the Chhattisgarh Region with Special Reference to Biology, Taxonomy, and Insect-Plant Interaction, Ph.D. thesis submitted to Pt. Ravishankar Shukla

2.        University, Raipur.

3.        Agrawal, A., and Pati, A.K. (1995). Nest architecture of a bagworm species: Rhythmic pattern in the arrangement of sticks. J. Biosciences 20, 409-416.

4.        Agrawal, A., and Pati, A.K. (2002a). Increment in the size of an inanimate object in the case of bagworm moth, Eumeta crameri Westwood (Lepidoptera: Psychidae) obeys Dyar’slaw.Current Science 83, 1- 10.

5.        Cotes, E., C. (1895). An account of the insects and mites which attack the tea plant in India. Superintendent of Government Printing.

6.        Ellis, J.A., Walter, Tooker, A.D., Ginzel, J.F., Reagel, M.D., Lacey, P.F., Bennett, E.S.A., Grossman, B.E.M., and Hanks, L.M. (2005). Conservation biological control in urban landscapes: manipulating parasitoids of bagworm (Lepidoptera: Psychidae) with flowering forbs. Biological control 34, 99–107.

7.        Gara, R.I., Sarango, A., and Cannon, P.G. (1990). Defoliation of an Ecuadorian mangrove forest by the bagworm, Oiketicus kirbyi Guilding (Lepidoptera: Psychidae). J. of Tropical Forest Science 3, 181-186.

8.        Heather, J.L., Marc, R., Justin, M.C., Stephen, C., Chris, C., and William, F.F. (2014). How climate extremes-not means-define a species geographic range boundary via a demographic tipping point. Ecological Monographs 84, 131-149.

9.        Holloway, J.D., Bradley, J.D., and Carter, O.J. (1987). Lepidoptera. In C.R. Betts (Ed.). A CIE guide to insects of importance to man. CAB Int. Inst. of Entomol. CAB International, U.K.

10.      Mathew, G. (1989). Natural enemies of the bagworm, Pteroma plagiophleps Hampson (Lepidoptera: Psychidae) in Kerala (India). Entomon. 14(3-4), 335-338.

11.      Mathew, G., and Nair, K.S.S. (1986). Bagworms (Lepidoptera: Psychidae) of Kerala - their potential as pests of tree crops. Proc. III Oriental Entomology Symposium 2, 163-167.

12.      Nair, K.S.S., and Mathew, G. (1988). Biology and control of insect pests of fast growing hardwood species (Final Report of the Research Project Entom 05/77, March 1977 to February 1982). 1. Albizia falcataria and Gmelina arborea. KFRI Research Report, (51 (Summary)).1-8.

13.      Nair, K.S.S., and Mathew, G. (1992). Biology, infestation characteristic and impact of the bagworm, Pteroma plagiophleps Hampson in forest plantations of Paraserianthes falcataria. Entomon. 17, 1-13.

14.      Pati, A.K., and Agrawal, A. (2000). Hierarchical perception of stimuli during case construction in the bagworm moth Eumeta crameri (Lepidoptera: Psychidae). J. of insect behavior 13, 667-677.

15.      Pillai, S.R.M., and Gopi, K.C. (1990). The bagworm Pteroma plagiophleps Hamp. (Lepidoptera: Psychidae) attack on Acacia nilotica (Linn.) Wild Ex Del. Indian Forester 116, 581-583.

16.      Pratap, S., and Bhandari, R.S. (1987). Insect pests of Acacia tortilis in India. Indian Forester 113(11), 734-743.

17.      Price, P.W., Cobb, N., Craig, T.P., Fernandes, G.W., Itami, J.K., Mopper, S., and Rhainds, M., and Cabrera–La Rosa, J.C. (2010). Oiketicus kirbyi (Lepidoptera, Psychidae), a key pest in Peruvian orchards of avocado. International journal of pest management 56(2), 103-107.

18.      Rhainds, M., and Sadof, C. (2009). Control of bagworms (Lepidoptera: Psychidae) using contact and soil-applied systemic insecticides. Journal of Economic Entomology 102(3), 1164-1169.

19.      Rhainds, M., Davis, D.R., and Price P.W., (2009). Bionomics of bagworms (Lepidoptera: Psychidae). Annu. Rev. Entomol. 54, 209–226.

20.      Rhainds, M., Leather, S.R., and Sadof, C. (2008). Polyphagy, flightlessness, and reproductive output of females: a case study with bagworms (Lepidoptera: Psychidae). Ecological Entomology 33(5), 663-672.

21.      Thangavelu, S., and Ravindranath, M.H., (1985). Morphology and life history of the bagworm moth Clania crameri (westwood). J. Nat. Hist. 19, 1-19

22.      Watt, G. (1898). The pests and blights of the tea plant. Calcutta: Government printing press.

23.      Watt, G. and Mann, H.H. (1903). The insect pests of tea. In: The pests and blights of  the tea plant. Govt. Printing Press, Calcutta. 429.

24.      Whittaker, R.H. (1972). Evolution and Measurement of Species Diversity. Taxon 21, 213-251. doi:10.2307/1218190

 

Received on 27.10.2024      Revised on 22.11.2024 Accepted on 30.12.2024     Published on 19.03.2025 Available online from March 27, 2025 Research J. Engineering and Tech. 2025; 16(1):7-24. DOI: 10.52711/2321-581X.2025.00002 ©A and V Publications All right reserved
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License.