Review of Related Literature

Giant Swamp Taro’s Composition

Giant swamp taro (CyrtospermaChamissonis) is a “lowland” taro species and the largest

of the taro family. It may reach heights of 4-5 metres, with leaves and roots much larger than

Colocasia taro. It grows well in atolls and swampy areas and it can weight more than 80 kg and

more. (FAO, 2010). It is slightly different from Giant Taro (Alocasiamacrorrhiza) for it it is

often grown in stony or rocky soils and within multiple cropping systems with taller crops. Both

of them are relatively resistant to certain insects and pests. (DORCEP, 2016)

Suggested by the study of Plucknet, nutrient analysis per 100 grams of edible portion of

corms of Cyrtospermachamissonis yielded 131 calories, 0.9g protein, 31g carbohydrate, 334mg

calcium, 56mg phosphorus, 1.2mg iron, 0.045mg thiamin, 0.074mg riboflavin, and 0.88mg

niacin. Stuart (2016) evaluated the potential alcohol yields from the acid hydrolysis of corms of

(Cyrtospermachamissonis) by 21.93% suggesting that it can be a potential raw material for

alcohol production. It also showed the cultivars (cultured giant swamp taro) to be rich in

carotenoid concentration with substantial amounts of zinc, calcium, and iron. Cultivars were

acceptable in taste and production factors suggesting the promotion for its potential health

benefits. A study conducted by Nguimbuet. al (2012) investigated the mucilage profile and

antioxidant properties of giant swamp taro tubers. The yellow (YP) and white (WP) sections of

giant swamp taro (GST) contain 40.0 g/kg and 51.5 g/kg (dry wt) respectively of pure mucilage

made up of D-glucose (44.95–78.85 %), D-galactose (8.70–25.35 %), D-mannose (3.20–

10.45 %), D-arabinose (2.45–5.20 %) and small amounts of glucuronic acid and rhamnose. This

plant also contained calcium oxalate crystals which cause very unpleasant sensations of needles
stuck in the mouth and tongue. They are easily neutralized by drying or cooking or by steeping in

water. (Frohne et.al, 2016).

Preferably, water-based extracts may be used as it is cheap and easy to prepare for the

coconut farmers (Edradan et al., 2015). A group of researchers (Tinaja et al, 2015) also tried to

use Giant Swamp taro as an organic pesticide against army worms but failed in the process,

saying that Giant Swamp Taro is not effective against army worms.

Green Semilooper’s major Damages in Rice Crops

Green semiloopers (Agoyammasignata) are considered to be one of the major pests that

feed on rice crops. They damage approximately 40-60% percent of the rice crops and have been

posed a serious threat to the rice industry. Farmers are greatly affected by this pests for they

affect the yield of the rice crops decreasing up to 30% (Jo Catindig 2013). They attack the leaves

leaving a hole and scratches in the leaf’s surface. The first sign of attack is seen at the top of the

plant. Dutt (1958) reported that apical buds are the most susceptible to damage. Kabir (1975) and

Ghosh (1983) also agreed that leaf buds are the most affected by the larval infestation. Kabir

noted that in all cases damage starts from leaf buds and extends downwards to the tenth or

eleventh leaf. Das (1948) described the symptoms of damage in detail. Newly hatched larvae

start feeding on the epidermal membrane of one side of the mesophyll, leaving the other

epidermal membrane intact. As the larvae grow bigger, holes become evident and the edges of

the tender leaves are bitten. Later on, apical leaves are repeatedly eaten, sometimes destroying

the growing shoot. In severe attacks the plants are totally defoliated, leaving the bare stem

standing in the field. Damage to their apical leaves checks the growth of the plants and

encourages side branching. Internodes at the place of attack become shortened and weakened.
The intensity of attack tends to vary inversely with the age of the foliage, about 81% of attack

being limited to the seventh fully opened leaf below the top. Defoliation from green semiloopers

and other pests that attack the vegetative stage are of greater significance in terms of yield loss if

the crop is also affected by other insect pests, diseases, weeds or soil problems, as many of these

stresses act synergistically to increase crop loss (Litsinger, 1993).

Green semilooper can be managed through the two chemicals, fenitrothione and

Carbaryl (NPIC, 2003.) Now days, using of safe and rational procedures are more acceptable due

to environmental risk assessment of these chemicals. B. Bassiana, which is a

entopathogenicmicrooganissm was found to be fatal against G. Semilooper. The substance

caused 81.03% mortality on egg by concentration of 1×107 (as LC50 concentration) (spore/ml)

in dipping bioassay and caused 52.11% mortality at the same concentration in spraying one.

(Dinan et. al, 2012). Management of green semiloopers can be incorporated with pesticides like

Carbaryl, Quiralphos, Chlorylpiphos and biopesticidespungam oil and neem oil (TNAU, 2014).

Biopesticides

There is no universally recognized definition, but in general terms biopesticides are mass-

produced, biologically based agents manufactured from living microorganisms or natural

products that are sold for the control of plant pests (Copping and Menn, 2000). An agency called

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that biopesticides are certain types

of pesticides derived from such natural materials as animals, plants, bacteria and certain minerals

(BPIA,2016). Kumar (2015) further explained that they are made from naturally occurring

substances that control pests by non-toxic mechanisms but in an ecofriendly manner. Dutta

(2015), a fellow in the Department of Pharmacology in NSHM, agreed to the definition of

Some of the biopesticide have the same qualities as chemical pesticides if they act on nervous

system of the pest. This can be associated when comparing organic pesticides and biopesticides

for these two pesticides have slight differences. Bellinger defined organic pesticides that come

from natural sources. These natural sources are usually plants, as is the case with pyrethrum

(pyrethins), rotenone or ryania (botanical insecticides), or minerals, such as boric acid, cryolite,

or diatomaceous earth. He noted that some organic pesticides harbor high levels of toxicity.

Compared to conventional pesticides, biopesticides are environmentally responsible and

sustainable. They are generally considered exempt from tolerances (maximum residue limits),

which means that residues on leaves and fruit are considered harmless (Bioworks, 2008).

Furthermore, Sharma and Malik (2012) have concluded that they are very effective in the

agricultural pest control without causing serious harm to ecological chain or worsening

environmental pollution. Some researchers regarded biopesticides as an “alternative.” According

to Gupta and Dikshit (2010), an ecofriendly alternative to chemical pesticides is biopesticides,

which encompasses a broad array of microbial pesticides, biochemicals derived from micro-

organisms and other natural sources, and processes involving the genetic incorporation of DNA

into agricultural commodities that confer protection against pest damage. In addition, Sporleder

and Lacey (2013), said that biopesticides are inherently less toxic to humans and the

environment, do not leave harmful residues, and are usually more specific to target pests. Often

they affect only the target pest and closely related organisms, substantially reducing the impact

on non-target species. Research has shown that biopesticides can be used as an effective second

line of defence with predators against western flower thrips and spider mites on greenhouse

crops (Jacobson et al., 2001; Chandler et al., 2005). They can also be beneficial in the flexibility
in labor and in harvest, and in the environmental and communal health. BPIA (2016) stated that

after applying organic pesticides to crops, workers can safely return to their crops shortly so that

they can closely monitor the crop conditions in the area. In general, they have “short worker

entry intervals” (Bioworks, 2008). Moreover, Khan et. al (2011) stated that biopesticides form

the back bone of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), their development, commercialization and

use has not yet lived up to the expectations of demand and supply. Soon and Botchell (1995)

have also concluded that the various non-chemical pesticide methods (biopesticides, biological

control etc.) can make valuable contributions to crop protection as part of IPM. In some

situations, a combination of non- pesticide approaches (biopesticides, biological control, cultural

control, etc.) may be able to replace synthetic pesticides, for example where a pest has developed

pesticide resistance. US EPA added that when used as a component of Integrated Pest

Management (IPM) programs, biopesticides can greatly reduce the use of conventional

pesticides, while crop yields remain high. (https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-

products/what-are-biopesticides#advantages)

Although biopesticides have its advantages, it has also its disadvantages. Hanson (2017)

enumerated four setbacks which are specificity, cost, less powerful and its frequent reapplication.

Biopesticides kills only the pests that are chemically engineered to be affected, thus if the

specific pest will be joined by other pests, they will be immune. It needs to be incorporated with

other pesticides to deter the pests. However, Greenhouse Grower (2012) stated that it takes

relatively longer (although this depends on the frequency of application) for an insect or mite

pest population to develop resistance to a selective pesticide or biopesticide. This is because

most selective pesticides and biopesticides have broad or non-specific modes of action, which

means these compounds are active on either multiple target sites in or on the insect or mite pest
body or the active ingredient attacks a variety of enzymatic or metabolic systems. Aside from its

high specifity, it is more costly and less readily available than conventional pesticide. Chandler

et. Al (2011) stated that they are regulated by systems designed originally for chemical pesticides

that have created market entry barriers by imposing burdensome costs on the biopesticide

industry. Biopesticides also tend to be less powerful than conventional pesticides. It is less toxic,

and therefore inevitably less powerful, than conventional pesticide. A large amount of

biopesticide may have the same effects as significantly smaller amounts of regular pesticide

(Hanson, 2017). Saha and Rana (2014) also stated that natural products have insufficient potency

or inadequate specificity to act as leads for synthesis. Lastly, it needs frequent reapplication. In

general, biopesticides have a shorter lifespan than regular pesticides. While a regular pesticide

may last for weeks or months, biopesticides need more frequent reapplication (Hanson, 2017).

Khan, et. al (2011), also emphasized its low shelf life solely because they are composed of

organic materials.

Examples of a biopesticideis neem oil. Neem products have been used to control a wide

range of insect pests and plant disease organisms. Azadirachtin, a steroid-like

tetranortriterpenoid (limonoid), is considered the most active pesticidal compound of neem

(1995, Soon et. al)

Synthesis of the Review. Articles in the review gathered from different sources give

information that are in accordance to the present research. They stressed that biopesticides came

from biological sources and must be coming from organic materials. These substances must be

ecofriendly and harbor ecological and communal benefits. Four authors stressed its upperhand in

the environmental aspect since it has less to no pollution to the environment. Its less impact on
humans is also stressed by two researchers. Flexibility in harvest is emphasized stating that it can

be used as a part of the Integrated Pest Management to garner more yields. Due to the promising

benefits, they are deemed as an “alternative” of the broadly used chemical pesticides which were

known to affect the holistic health (human and environmental health). Although those are the

cases, still Hanson (2017) stated four setbacks of a bio pesticide. These are cost, specificity,

potency to insects, its frequent reapplication, and low shelf life. Saha and Rana (2014), Chandler

et. Al (2011), and Khan (2011) supported his concerns. However, Greenhouse Grower (2017)

opposed the idea of faster development of immunity because of its high specificity. It said that

they take relatively longer for insects to develop resistance using bio pesticides. Soon and

Botchell even proposed them as part of the IPM for places with pesticide resistance. In the case

of managing green semiloopers, biopesticides were used alongside other methods to better

manage the pest. These pests were known as defoliators and causes yield loss. However, known

killers for this pests where chemical pesticides. There are few known bio pesticides that control

this pest, in which an entopathogenic microogranism is one of them. Interestingly, a certain plant

has intrinsic properties that made it relatively resistant to pest and insects. It was formerly

studied as an effective insecticide for “cocolisap”- pests of coconuts. This plant is the Giant

Swamp Taro. The readings share the same idea for the purpose of this study as an alternative

pesticide but differ in the insect that will be treated.