Economically Important Insects on Cruciferous Crops (Brassicaceae): An Updated Global Inventory

© 2025 Academia Sinica, Taiwan Open Access Economically Important Insects on Cruciferous Crops (Brassicaceae): An Updated Global Inventory Sourav Chakrabarty1 and Pathour R. Shashank1,* 1National Pusa Collection, Division of Entomology, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa Campus, New Delhi 110012, India. *Correspondence: E-mail: [email protected] (Shashank) E-mail: [email protected] (Chakrabarty) Received 24 October 2024 / Accepted 15 May 2025 / Published 6 August 2025 Communicated by Jen-Pan Huang This inventory provides a comprehensive list of 286 agriculturally important insect species from cruciferous crops (bok choy, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, kale, mustard, radish, rapeseed, and toria), spanning 10 orders: Coleoptera, Dermaptera, Diptera, Hemiptera, Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, Neuroptera, Odonata, Orthoptera, and Thysanoptera. These species belong to 53 families, with Coccinellidae comprising the most species (39), followed by Syrphidae (22) and Apidae (20). Functional diversity analysis highlights that foliage feeders dominate the pest category (52%), while nymphaladult predators make up the majority of natural enemies (45%). Larval parasitoids and pupal parasitoids account for 27% and 10%, respectively. Hymenoptera (51%) leads among pollinators, followed by Lepidoptera (21%) and Diptera (17%). This first-of-its-kind inventory serves as a valuable resource for field entomologists and other stakeholders in pest management and conservation strategies. Key words: Checklist, Crucifers, Natural enemies, Pestiferous, Pollinators Citation: Chakrabarty S, Shashank PR. 2025. Economically important insects on cruciferous crops (Brassicaceae): an updated global inventory. Zool Stud 64:30. doi:10.6620/ZS.2025.64-30. BACKGROUND Cruciferous plants belong to the family Brassicaceae consisting of one of the most important groups of winter season crops (Kumaranag et al. 2014) which include many edible oil plants, vegetables, and feed plants (Al-Shehbaz et al. 2006). Vegetables such as Broccoli, Cabbage, Cauliflower, Turnip and Oilseeds like Mustard comprise the major share of crucifers in the world. Crucifers are full of vitamins such as vitamin K and C along with dietary fibers, anti-oxidant, antiinflammatory (Singh et al. 2001; Steinbrecher and Linseisen 2009) as well as detoxifying properties due to high sulfur and vitamin C contents (Kusznierewicz et al. 2008). Crucifers are especially known for their anticarcinogenic properties, as they contain Isothiocyanates and Indole-3-Carbinol which has been exclusively studied through experimental in-vivo and in-vitro carcinogenesis models (Murillo and Mehta 2001). These crops are used all over the world for eating as raw salad or cooked preparations. However, the productivity of these crops is considered to be low (Rasool and Lone 2022) as various biotic and abiotic stresses have a detrimental impact on both of their production and quality. Earlier in India, more than 30 insects were recorded from cruciferous vegetables only (Lal 1990) of which most were classified as major pests. It includes diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella), head borer (Hellula undalis), cabbage butterfly (Pieris brassicae), aphids (Lipaphis erysimi, Brevicoryne brassicae), semilooper (Trichoplusia ni) etc (Baidoo and Adam 2012; Baidoo and Mochiah 2016). Among these, diamondback moth is the most devastating pest of cruciferous vegetables as it causes significant yield losses varying from 31–100% (Chaubey and Murthy 2018). Farias et al. (2020) noted that the pest could cause a yield loss of up to 92% in Cabbage, 75% in Broccoli, and 30% in cauliflower depending upon the variety and extent of infestation. Raja et al. (2014) recorded 11 insect pests of crucifers from Zoological Studies 64:30 (2025) doi:10.6620/ZS.2025.64-30 1 © 2025 Academia Sinica, Taiwan Tamilnadu of which diamondback moth and head borer cause enormous yield loss in the tropics and sub-tropics (Grzywacz et al. 2010; Furlong et al. 2013; Labou et al. 2017). In India, it has been estimated that 50–80% of annual loss in marketable yield is due to the infestation of insect pests in cruciferous vegetables (Devjani and Singh 1999; Krishnamoorthy 2004). Flea beetles and mustard sawflies are considered two of the major pests of cruciferous crops (Pradhan et al. 2020) during their early stages as they feed on the leaves by making holes, and the effective area of photosynthesis is reduced. Flea beetle was not considered serious pests previously but recent reports indicate it as an emerging menace of most of the crucifer growing regions, especially Northern India (Anooj et al. 2020). Biodiversity of flea beetles was studied in Kashmir Valley where four species of these beetles had been reported of which Phyllotreta striolata was the predominant one (Rather et al. 2017). Aphids and several pentatomid bugs are important sap-sucking insects. Aphids not only, suck the sap and destroy a plant’s vitality, but also they transmit viral diseases (Yadav and Rathee 2020) likeCauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) which significantly reduces the crop yield (Haas et al. 2002). Several species of aphids are associated with cruciferous vegetables of which Brachycaudus helichrysi, Brevicoryne brassicae, Lipaphis erysimi, and Myzus persicae are important. Several Pentatomid bugs also damage the crop in different stages of growth, however, Bagrada hilaris is the most damaging one as it kills the seedlings, reduces plant stands and severely stunts the surviving plants during early stages (Reed et al. 2013; Huang et al. 2014). Also, in some plants, bug feeding stimulates growth of secondary shoots leading to unmarketable produce due to undersized heads (Joseph et al. 2017). Other insect pests including several cutworms, grasshoppers, thrips, weevils etc. may be found sporadically in the crop fields, and under suitable environmental conditions, they have a massive potential to damage the crops. Several insect predators including different species of ladybird beetles, hover flies, green lacewings, spiders and parasitoid wasps are also evident in the crucifer fields. Among predators, ladybird beetles are the most dominant (Obrycki et al. 2009). A complex of ladybird beetles is reported on cruciferous crops of which Brumoides suturalis, Cheilomenes sexmaculata, Coccinella septempunctata, C. transversalis, C. undecimpunctata, Micraspis discolor, Scymnus pyrocheilus, and S. xerampelinus are the most important (Chaudhary and Singh 2012; Bhowmik et al. 2014). Larvae of syrphids such asBetasyrphus serarius, Episyrphus balteatus, Metasyrphus confractor, Paragus serratus, Sphaerophoria indiana are wellknown aphid feeders (Pradhan et al. 2020). There are almost 90 nominal species of parasitoids attacking different stages of insect pests which are known to be associated with cruciferous agro ecosystem (Azidah et al. 2000). Among them, Apanteles sp. (Hymenoptera: Braconidae); Diadegma semiclausum, D. rapi, D. mollipla (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) and Oomyzus sokolowskii (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) are mostly evident in reports (Saini et al. 2019). Besides insect pests, crucifer ecosystem also harbours several pollinators and beneficial insects that are extremely invaluable in-terms of their ecosystem services they render. Many Brassica species depend on insect pollinators for pollen transfer, benefiting from their abundant floral resources and high-sugar nectar (Thom et al. 2018; Indora et al. 2023). More than 50 pollinator species have been recorded (Atmowidi et al. 2007; Shakeel et al. 2019; Divekar et al. 2023; Prajula et al. 2023), including honeybees such as Apis mellifera, A. cerana indica, A. dorsata, and A. florea (Abrol 2007), as well as various non-Apis bees from families like Megachilidae, Halictidae, Pompilidae, Sphecidae, Formicidae, Ichneumonidae, Vespidae, and Scoliidae (Devi et al. 2017; Hossain et al. 2021). Hoverflies also contribute significantly to pollination (Badenes-Pérez 2022). Additionally, some Lepidopterans, ladybird beetles, and stink bugs are associated with crucifers, though their roles in pollination remain unclear (Subedi and Subedi 2019). Notably, insect-mediated crosspollination of rapeseed (Brassica campestris var. toria) has been shown to increase yield by an impressive 133.33% compared to self-pollination (Ahmed and Rehman 2002). Knowledge and information regarding the agriculturally important insects associated with cruciferous crops is vital for their management and conservation. To help different stakeholders involved in pest management and conservation this updated inventory of important insect pests, natural enemies, and insect pollinators on crucifers is important. MATERIALS AND METHODS This compilation provides comprehensive information on agriculturally important insects associated with crucifers all over the world. The documentation of information was done as per available literature regarding the aforementioned subject. First, a base list was developed by reviewing historical literature, including research articles, catalogues, and theses from 1901–2000. This foundational list was subsequently updated with more recent publications (2001-present) to reflect the latest data on nomenclature, page 2 of 10Zoological Studies 64:29 (2025) © 2025 Academia Sinica, Taiwan and functional roles of the insects. We utilized various authentic databases and compendiums like- “HOSTS” (Robinson et al. 2010), “Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International” (CABI), “Global Biodiversity Information Facility” (GBIF) to verify and enhance our information. These resources provided current distribution records and helped in ensuring the accuracy of our data. Distributions of the insects were categorized on a global basis using four indexing terminologies viz. a. WorldwideIt indicates the insect is found everywhere across the world. b. WidespreadIt suggests the insect is found across various regions of a country or continent. c. LocalizedIt implies that the insect is mainly confined to some particular regions likea state or a province or even a part of a country, indicating its special ecological requirements. d. SporadicIt signifies that the insect has an irregular distribution with scattered populations. The grouping of insects had been done according to their taxonomic hierarchies. This organization was presented alphabetically by order, family, and species respectively. This compilation was grouped into three comprehensive categories such as, pests, natural enemies, and insect pollinators associated with cruciferous crops and presented in tabulated forms. All the lists comprised of scientific names, distributions, and corresponding references. Apart from these, the nature of damage along with the damaging stage and status were mentioned in the pest checklist. The pest status is represented by two common terminologies viz. ‘Major’ and ‘Minor’ based on their current severity, as per different literature and online databases. The term “Major” was used for those causing significant economic damage (> 10%) and the insects where comparatively less economic damage had been reported, were written as “Minor” (Ragumoorthi et al. 2020). Further, these terminologies were supported by qualitative assessments from the present literature, available in Google Scholar and online databases. Similarly, the documentation includes lists of natural enemies, such as predators and parasitoids, along with details of their distribution, prey or host range, and the specific developmental stages they target (e.g., egg, larva, or pupa). Additionally, pollinators, including Apis and non-Apis bees, as well as other foraging insects, were recorded with information on their distribution and foraging purpose. For cases where information was incomplete or unavailable, these entries were marked with a ‘dash’ (-) in the supplementary material. RESULTS Inventory of agriculturally important insects associated with cruciferous crops As per our survey of literature, databases, and compendiums, we have accumulated a total of 286 agriculturally important insects associated with cruciferous crops worldwide of which 106 are pests, 87 are natural enemies, and 93 are pollinators and flower visitors, as shown in figure 1. These insects belong to 10 orders and 53 families. The different insect pest species (Table S1), natural enemies (Table S2) and insect pollinators (Table S3) associated with crucifer crops are provided with their distribution, functional details, references etc. Study of species richness of agriculturally important insects associated with crucifers An overall study regarding the total number of species, and number of species per order along with their superfamilies and families have been carried out and illustrated in figures 2, 3 and table 1. Among these, maximum number of species fall under the family Coccinellidae (39 species), followed by Syrphidae (22 species), Apidae (20 species), Noctuidae (18 species), Braconidae and Pieridae (16 species each), Pentatomidae (14 species), and Ichneumonidae (11 species). Others with one or few species are Agromyzidae, Aleyrodidae, Andrenidae, Anthomyiidae, Aphididae, Cecidomyiidae, Cicadellidae, Coreidae, Curculionidae, Forficulidae, Halictidae, Megachilidae, Miridae, Muscidae, Nitidulidae, Reduviidae, Scarabaeidae, Tipulidae etc, as shown in table 1. The species diversity across different families within a order is also illustrated in figure 4. In terms of functional diversity, among the pests, majority are leaf feeders (52%) followed by pod and inflorescence along with leaf, pod, inflorescence, root eaters (18%) (Fig. 5). Most of the natural enemies Fig. 1. Order and familial diversity of different agriculturally important insect fauna in crucifers. page 3 of 10Zoological Studies 64:29 (2025) © 2025 Academia Sinica, Taiwan are either predators of soft-bodied insects (45%) or parasitoids of lepidopteran larvae (27%) followed by pupal parasitoids (10%) and nymphal-adult parasitoids (9%) (Fig. 6). Pollinators are mostly from the order, Hymenoptera (51%) however, we have recorded ample number of pollinators from the Lepidoptera too (21%) (Fig. 7). DISCUSSION Insects constitute a major portion of the biodiversity of agricultural ecosystems, serving indispensable ecological functions as herbivores, food source of other vertebrates and invertebrates (Vaughan 1997) and some of them are significant pollinators. Therefore, to understand the biodiversity of any agroecosystem, baseline data on species occurrence is very important. The present comprehensive inventory is an exhaustive exploration of literature including catalogues, research articles, reviews on different taxa, thesis, along with the compilation of data from different online databases. This is not only confined to the taxonomic level but also accounts for the functional roles of the insects in crucifer ecosystem. Previously, Sharma and Ramamurthy (2009) and Kumar et al. (2010) studied diversity of pestiferous insects associated with vegetables and Syzygium cumini respectively. However, the documented insect diversity within cruciferous crops highlights insects of different trophic levels, indicating complex ecological interactions, particularly in-terms of co-existence of pests and their natural enemies. For instance, the presence of aphids, Brevicoryne brassicae as pests is often counterbalanced by predatory insects such as Coccinella septempunctata and parasitoids likeDiaretiella rapae, contributing to natural pest suppression (Ahuja et al. 2011). Additionally, pollinators such as syrphid flies and honeybees play a crucial role in maintaining stability of ecosystem as well as increasing yield through enhanced pollination efficiency (Dar et al. 2017). Changes in environmental conditions, including climate shifts and intensive pesticide use, can disrupt these interactions, potentially leading to pest outbreaks Table 1. The compilation of species richness of different agriculturally important insects recorded in cruciferous crops Order Superfamily Family No. of Species No. of Species/ Order Coleoptera Chrysomeloidea Chrysomelidae 10 62 Cucujoidea Coccinellidae 39 Curculionoidea Curculionidae 6 Nitidulidae 1 Scarabaeoidea Scarabaeidae 6 Dermaptera Forficuloidea Forficulidae 1 1 Diptera Agromyzoidea Agromyzidae 5 36 Muscoidea Anthomyiidae 6 Muscidae 1 Sciaroidea Cecidomyiidae 1 Syrphoidea Syrphidae 22 Tipuloidea Tipulidae 1 Hemiptera Aleyrodoidea Aleyrodidae 1 27 Aphidoidea Aphididae 5 Cicadelloidea Cicadellidae 3 Cimicoidea Miridae 2 Coreoidea Coreidae 1 Pentatomoidea Pentatomidae 14 Reduvioidea Reduviidae 1 page 4 of 10Zoological Studies 64:29 (2025) © 2025 Academia Sinica, Taiwan Order Superfamily Family No. of Species No. of Species/ Order Hymenoptera Apoidea Andrenidae 3 94 Apidae 20 Halictidae 9 Megachilidae 6 Chalcidoidea Aphelinidae 1 Chalcididae 6 Eulophidae 1 Pteromalidae 3 Trichogrammatidae 3 Formicoidea Formicidae 2 Ichneumomoidea Braconidae 16 Ichneumonidae 11 Pompiloidea Pompilidae 1 Scelionoidea Scelionidae 1 Scolioidea Scoliidae 3 Tenthridinoidea Tenthridinidae 3 Vespoidea Vespidae 5 Lepidoptera Gelechioidea Gelechiidae 2 57 Hesperioidea Hesperiidae 1 Noctuoidea Erebidae 3 Noctuidae 18 Papilionoidea Lycaenidae 2 Nymphalidae 9 Papilionidae 1 Pieridae 16 Pyraloidea Crambidae 4 Yponomeutoidea Plutellidae 1 Neuroptera Chrysopoidea Chrysopidae 1 1 Odonata Gomphoidea Gomphidae 1 2 Libelluloidea Libellulidae 1 Orthoptera Acridoidea Acrididae 2 3 Tetrigoidea Tetrigidae 1 Thysanoptera Aeolothripoidea Aeolothripidae 1 3 Thripoidea Thripidae 2 Total 286 Table 1. (Continued) page 5 of 10Zoological Studies 64:29 (2025) © 2025 Academia Sinica, Taiwan Fig. 3. Total number of insect species recorded in different superfamilies. Cucujoidea has the highest species richness among all the superfamilies (13.6%) followed by Apoidea (13.3%) and Papilionoidea (9.8%). Fig. 2. Superfamilial, familial, and species diversity of different agriculturally important insect orders in crucifer field. Order Hymenoptera accounts for the highest diversity in terms of superfamilies, families, and species. page 6 of 10 Zoological Studies 64:29 (2025) © 2025 Academia Sinica, Taiwan Fig. 4. Species diversity across different agriculturally important insect orders associated with crucifers. a, Coleoptera; b, Diptera; c, Hemiptera; d, Hymenoptera; e, Lepidoptera; f, Other orders and families. page 7 of 10Zoological Studies 64:29 (2025) © 2025 Academia Sinica, Taiwan and biodiversity loss (Skendžić et al. 2021). A recent study in India documented a similar arthropod pest complex and associated natural enemies across various phenological stages of Withania somnifera, highlighting the dynamic nature of species interactions (Kedar et al. 2024). By providing a comprehensive inventory of insect species associated with cruciferous crops, this study enhances the understanding of the ecological roles of these species, their interactions within agroecosystems, and the potential implications for pest management and conservation strategies. The findings can serve as a baseline for monitoring biodiversity shifts due to environmental changes and inform sustainable agricultural practices aimed at balancing pest control and biodiversity conservation. Therefore, a comprehensive insect inventory combining both taxonomic and functional diversity of agriculturally important insect species is quite unique. The difficulty of amalgamation of raw data regarding taxonomy and ecological roles of insects, probably due to fewer technical workers and shortage of time, is a major roadblock in assessing the overall field situation of an agricultural ecosystem. This study may fill this gap and encourage others regarding the need to connect taxonomy of insects along with their functional roles in the near future. CONCLUSIONS This comprehensive study yields an inventory of 286 agriculturally important insects associated with cruciferous crops all over the world. The current study is not only focusing on the pests but also on the beneficial insect fauna present in the crucifer agroecosystem. Therefore, this study reflects the species richness of insects associated with crucifers. After the compilation of all the species, some diversity studies are also performed to get a broad functional overview. So, this compilation may be a great source to carry forward further works by entomologists, taxonomists, biologists, and environmentalists. Acknowledgments: The work was conducted under ICAR-IARI, New Delhi in-house project entitled ‘Biosystematics and genetic variability studies of insects, fungi, and nematodes for sustainable agriculture (CRSCIARISIL20210026311)’ to the corresponding author (PRS). The first author acknowledges the Graduate School, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi for the financial support via fellowship. Authors’ contributions: Sourav Chakrabarty (SC) contributed to literature collection and acquisition, data analysis, writing the original manuscript. Pathour R Shashank (PRS) contributed to conceptualization, study design, data curation, writing: reviewing and editing the manuscript and funding acquisition. Competing interests: SC and PRS declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Availability of data and materials: All the data related to the study are provided in the manuscript and supplementary material. Fig. 5. Functional diversity of different insect pests recorded in crucifer field. Fig. 6. Functional diversity of different natural enemies in crucifer agroecosystem. Fig. 7. Functional diversity of insect pollinators in crucifer fields belonging to different orders. page 8 of 10Zoological Studies 64:29 (2025) © 2025 Academia Sinica, Taiwan Consent for publication: Not applicable. Ethics approval consent to participate: Not applicable. REFERENCES Abrol DP. 2007. Honeybees and rapeseed: a pollinator-plant interaction. Adv Bot Res 45:337–367. doi:10.1016/s00652296(07)45012-1. Ahmed B, Rehman A. 2002. Population dynamics of insect foragers and their effect on seed yield of rapeseed (Brassica campestris L. var. toria). Indian Bee J 64:1–5. Ahuja I, Rohloff J, Bones AM. 2011. Defence mechanisms of Brassicaceae: implications for plant-insect interactions and potential for integrated pest management. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 30:623–670. doi:10.1051/agro/2009025. Al-Shehbaz IA, Beilstein MA, Kellogg EA. 2006. Systematics and phylogeny of the Brassicaceae (Cruciferae): an overview. Plant Syst Evol 259:89–120. doi:10.1007/s00606-006-0415-z. Anooj SS, Raghavendra KV, Shashank PR, Nithya C, Sardana HR et al. 2020. An emerging pest of radish, striped flea beetle Phyllotreta striolata (Fabricius), from Northern India: incidence, diagnosis and molecular analysis. Phytoparasitica 48:743–753. doi:10.1007/s12600-020-00825-4. Atmowidi T, Buchori D, Manuwoto S, Suryobroto B, Hidayat P. 2007. Diversity of pollinator insects in relation to seed set of mustard (Brassica rapa L.: Cruciferae). Hayati 14:155–161. doi:10.4308/ hjb.14.4.155. Azidah AA, Fitton MG, Quicke DLJ. 2000. Identification of the Diadegma species (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae) attacking the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Bull Entomol Res 90:375– 389. doi:10.1017/s0007485300000511. Badenes-Pérez FR. 2022. Benefits of Insect Pollination in Brassicaceae: A meta-analysis of self-compatible and self-incompatible crop species. Agriculture 12:446. doi:10.3390/agriculture12040446. Baidoo PK, Adam JI. 2012. The effects of extracts of Lantana camara (L.) and Azadirachta indica (A. Juss) on the population dynamics of Plutella xylostella, Brevicoryne brassicae and Hellula undalis on cabbage. Sustain Agric Res 1:229–234. doi:10.5539/sar. v1n2p229. Baidoo PK, Mochiah MB. 2016. Comparing the effectiveness of garlic (Allium sativum L.) and hot pepper (Capsicum frutescens L.) in the management of the major pests of cabbage Brassica oleracea (L.). Sustain Agric Res 5:83–91. doi:10.5539/sar.v5n2p83. Bhowmik B, Mitra B, Bhadra K. 2014. Diversity of insect pollinators and their effect on crop yield of Brassica juncea L., NPJ-93, from Southern West Bengal. Int J Recent Sci Res 5:1207–1213. Chaubey BK, Murthy KS. 2018. Seasonal incidence of diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) and its parasitoids on cabbage. Indian J Agric Res 88:469–473. doi:10.56093/ijas.v88i3.78677. Chaudhary HC, Singh R. 2012. Records of the predators of aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) in eastern Uttar Pradesh. J Aphidology 25:13–30. Dar SA, Lone GM, Parey SH, Hassan GI, Rather BA. 2017. Insect pollinators and their conservation. J Entomol Zool Stud 5:1121– 1131. Devi M, Sharma HK, Thakur RK, Bhardwaj SK, Rana K et al. 2017. Diversity of insect pollinators in reference to seed set of mustard (Brassica juncea L.). Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 6:2131–2144. doi:10.20546/ijcmas.2017.607.250. Devjani P, Singh TK. 1999. Field density and biology of diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella L. (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) on cauliflower in Manipur. J Adv Zool 20:53–55. Divekar PA, Patel SK, Singh V. 2023. Insect pollinator diversity and their foraging behaviour in Radish, Raphanus sativus L. Emergent Life Sci Res 9:68–76. doi:10.31783/elsr.2023.926876. Farias ES, Santos AA, Ribeiro AV, Carmo DG, Paes JS et al. 2020. Climate and host plants mediating seasonal dynamics and withinplant distribution of the diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella). Crop Prot 134:105172. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105172. Furlong MJ, Wright DJ, Dosdall LM. 2013. Diamondback moth ecology and management: problems, progress, and prospects. Annu Rev Entomol 58:517–541. doi:10.1146/annurevento-120811-153605. Grzywacz D, Rossbach A, Rauf A, Russell DA, Srinivasan R et al. 2010. Current control methods for diamondback moth and other brassica insect pests and the prospects for improved management with lepidopteran-resistant Bt vegetable brassicas in Asia and Africa. Crop Prot 29:68–79. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2009.08.009. Haas M, Bureau M, Geldreich A, Yot P, Keller M. 2002. Cauliflower mosaic virus: still in the news. Mol Plant Pathol 3:419–429. doi:10.1046/j.1364-3703.2002.00136.x. Hossain MS, Rahman MM, Hossain ME, Sarkar S, Rahman K. 2021. Diversity and abundance of pollinators in different winter crops at Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University Campus, Dhaka. J Biodivers Conserv Bioresour Manag 7:33–42. doi:10.3329/ jbcbm.v7i1.57121. Huang TI, Reed DA, Perring TM, Palumbo JC. 2014. Feeding damage by Bagrada hilaris (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) and impact on growth and chlorophyll content of Brassicaceous plant species. Arthropod Plant Interact 8:89–100. doi:10.1007/s11829-0149289-0. Indora J, Yadav S, Yadav SS. 2023. Relative abundance of different Apis spp. on rapeseed-mustard. Indian J Entomol 85:101–107. doi:10.55446/ije.2023.1170. Joseph SV, Grettenberger IM, Godfrey LD, Zavala N. 2017. Susceptibility of germinating cruciferous seeds to Bagrada hilaris (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) feeding injury. Arthropod Plant Interact 11:577–590. doi:10.1007/s11829-017-9501-0. Kedar SC, Annamalai M, Joshi S, Navik O, Kumaranag et al. 2024. Arthropods pest complex and associated natural enemies across different phenological growth stages of ashwagandha (Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal) in India: Insights for developing integrated pest management strategies for sustainable production. J Appl Res Med Aromat Plants 43:100590. doi:10.1016/ j.jarmap.2024.100590. Krishnamoorthy A. 2004. Biological control of diamondback moth Plutella xylostella (L.), an Indian scenario with reference to past and future strategies. In: International Symposium (Kirk, A. A and Bordat, D. eds.), Montpellier, France, CIRAD, 2004. Kumaranag KM, Kedar SC, Thodsare NH, Bawaskar DM. 2014. Insect pests of cruciferous vegetables and their management. Popular Kheti 2:80–86. Kumar R, Ramamurthy VV, Sharma G. 2010. Checklist of insects associated with Jamun (Syzygium cuminii Skeels) from India. Biological ForumAn International Journal 2:1–5. Kusznierewicz B, Bartoszek A, Wolska L, Drzewiecki J, Gorinstein S et al. 2008. Partial characterization of white cabbages (Brassica oleracea var. capitata f. alba) from different regions by glucosinolates, bioactive compounds, total antioxidant activities and proteins. LWT-Food Sci and Technol 41:1–9. doi:10.1016/ j.lwt.2007.02.007. Labou B, Brévault T, Sylla S, Diatte M, Bordat D et al. 2017. Spatial and temporal incidence of insect pests in farmers’ cabbage fields page 9 of 10Zoological Studies 64:29 (2025)