Effect of Plant Phenology and Related Factors on Insect Pest Infestations in Arboreum and Hirsutum Cotton Varieties

  • A. K. Chakravarthy
  • A. S. Sidhu
  • Joginder Singh
Research Article


Phenology of Arboreum varieties: G 27, LD 133 and LD 230 differed from Hirsutum, F 414 under unsprayed conditions in Ludhiana. Protection to Arboreum varieties at seedling stage against grasshopper and to bolls formed between 1 August to 15 September against bollworm damage was found necessary. In Hirsutum variety, F 414 bolls formed between 16 August to 15 September needed maximum protection from bollworm damage.

At vegetative phase, jassid population was positively correlated with the leaf size and negatively with number of gossypol glands and leaf thickness, and that of whitefly was positively correlated with number of leaves per plant. Six plant morphological characters: number of leaves, squares, bolls, vegetative and reproductive branches and shoot pubescence-affected bollworm infestation significantly and the effect was related to and varied with the age of the plant. Anthocyanin pigment was not detected in any plant part in the four cotton varieties. At vegetative and reproductive phases, gossypol, total phenols, condensed tannins, ieuco-anthocyanins and flavenols in leaf, shoot and boll per se did not influence insect pest infestations under field conditions. The parasite population was not related to pest infestations throughout the plant growth. Predation rates, however, on pest populations seemed to be considerable. Sclereids and lignified cells affected penetration of first instar Earias vittella larvae into bolls.

Key Words

Plant phenology biophysical and biochemical plant characters pest infestations timing of control operations 


A Ludhiana, la phénologie des variétés de VArboreum G 27, LD 133 et LD 230 différait de celle de la variété Hirsitum F 414 dans des conditions de non pulvérisation des plantes. Il a été nécessaire de protéger les variétés d’arboreum au stade de germination contre la sauterelle. On a aussi protégé les graines formées entre le 1 août et le 15 septembre contre les vers. Dans la variété Hirsitum F 414 les graines formées entre le 16 août et le 15 septembre ont requis une protection maximale contre les attaques des vers.

Au stade végétatif, une corrélation positive a été établie entre la population des jassidés et les dimensions de la feuille. Une corrélation négative fut trouvée entre la même population de jassidés et le nombre de glandes de gossypol et l’épaisseur de la feuille. Entre la population de whitefly et le nombre de feuilles par plante, la corrélation était positive. Six charactères morphologiques de la plante, le nombre de feuilles, squares, graines, branches végétatives et reproductrives et la pubéscence des pousses ont affecté sensiblement l’infestation causée par les vers et l’effet était lié à l’âge de la plante et variait avec celle-ci. Dans les quatre variétés du cotton, aucune partie de la plante ne contenait de pigment d’anthocyanine. Aux stades reproductifs et végétatifs le gossypol, les phénols, les tannines condensés, les leuco- anthocyanines et les flavénols dans la feuille, la pousse et la graine n’ont pas influé sur l’infestation des plantes par les insectes dans les champs d’expérimentation. La population des parasites n’avait aucun rapport avec l’infestation causée par les insectes durant la croissance de la plante. Cependant l’effet des prédateurs sur les populations des insectes semblait considérable. Les scléroides et les cellules lignifiées affectaient la pénétration des larves Earias vittella dans les graines.

Mots Clefs

Phénologie des plantes variétés de cotton anthocyanine gossypol tannines phénols flavénols effet des prédateurs 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Oil Chemists’ Society (1970) Official and Tentative Methods of Analysis. Toxic Constituents of Plant Food Stuffs (Edited by Liener I. E.), p. 502. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Batra G. R. and Gupta D. S. (1970) Screening of varieties of cotton for resistance to jassid. Cott. Grow. Rev. 47, 285–291.Google Scholar
  3. Bedford H. W. (1936) Entomological section, Agricultural Research Service Report, Session 1936–37. Rep. agric. Res. Serv. Sudan. Rev. appl. Ent. 26, 511–512.Google Scholar
  4. Chakravarthy A. K. (1982) Bollworms infestation in relation to the phenology of Arboreum cotton. Ph.D. thesis (unpublished), p. 165. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.Google Scholar
  5. Chalfant R. B., Suber E. G. and Canerday T. D. (1972) Resistance of southern peas to the cowpea curculio in the field. J. econ. Ent. 65, 1679–1682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan B. G., Waise A. C. J. and Lukefahr M. (1978) Condensed tannin, an antibiotic chemical from Gossypium hirsutum. J. Insect Physiol. 24, 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Falcon L. A. and Smith R. F. (1973) Guidelines for Integrated Control of Cotton Insect Pests, p. 92. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  8. Fukuda J. (1952) Studies on ecology and control of Chlorita biguttula Ishida. I. On the resistance of egg plant to Chlorita biguttula. Bull. natn. Tokai, Kinki exp. Sta. 1, 159–211.Google Scholar
  9. Henneberry T. J. (1962) The effect of host-plant nitrogen supply and age of leaf tissue on the fecundity of the two spotted spider mite. J. econ. Ent. 55, 799–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Joshi A. B. and Rao S. B. (1959) The problem of breeding jassid resistant varieties of cotton in India. Indian Cott. Grow. Rev. 13, 270–279.Google Scholar
  11. Joshi K. V., Code R. B. and Shahi A. K. (1941) Scientific Monograph No. 1. Indian Cent. Cott. Comm., Bombay.Google Scholar
  12. Katiyar K. N. (1977) Impact of flowering sequence on the incidences of bollworms in different varieties of cotton. Entomologists Newsl. 7, 31.Google Scholar
  13. Niles G. A. (1980) Breeding cotton for resistance to insect pests. In Breeding Plants Resistant to Insects (Edited by Maxwell F. G. and Jennings P. R.), pp. 337–370. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Panda N., Mahapatra A. and Sahoo M. (1971) Field evaluation of some brinjal varieties for resistance to shoot and fruit-borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.). Indian J. agric. Sci. 41, 597–601.Google Scholar
  15. Patanakamjorn S. and Pathak M. D. (1967) Varietal resistance of rice to the Asiatic rice borer, Chito suppressalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), and its association with various plant characters. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 60, 287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Punjab Agricultural University (1980) Package of Practices for Kharif Crops of Punjab, p. 188. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.Google Scholar
  17. Reynolds H. T., Adkisson P. L., Smith R. F. and Frisbie R. E. (1982) Cotton insect pest management. In Introduction to Insect Pest Management (Edited by Metcalf R. L. and Luckmann W. H.), 2nd edn, pp. 375–441. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Sandhu S. S. (1974) Damage simulation studies on spotted bollworms infesting cotton. M.Sc. thesis (unpublished) p. 67. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.Google Scholar
  19. Sharma H. C. and Agarwal R. A. (1983) Factors affecting genotypic susceptibility to spotted bollworm Earias vittella Fab. in cotton. Insect Sci. Applic. 4, 363–372.Google Scholar
  20. Singh H. (1978) Studies on the insect pest infestation in relation to phenology of arboreum cotton. M.Sc. thesis (unpublished), p. 54. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.Google Scholar
  21. Singh J. (1979) Pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypoella (Saunders) infestation in relation to the phenology of cotton crop. Ph.D. thesis (unpublished), p. 128. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.Google Scholar
  22. Singh J. and Sidhu A. S. (1982) Carry over sources for Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) and parasitoid Apanteies angaleti Muesebeck. J. Res. Punjab agric. Univ. 19, 217–221.Google Scholar
  23. Swain T. and Hillis W. E. (1959) The phenolic constituents of Prunus domestica I. The quantitative analysis of phenolic constituents. J. Sci. Fd Agrie. 10, 63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tidke P. M. and Sane P. V. (1962) Jassid resistance and morphology of cotton. Indian Cott. Grow. Rev. 16, 324–327.Google Scholar
  25. Tingey W. M. and Singh S. R. (1980) Environmental factors influencing the magnitude and expression of resistance. In Breeding Plants Resistant to Insects (Edited by Maxwell F. G. and Jennings P. R.), p. 683. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Waiss A. C., Chan B. G., Eiliger C. A., Dreyer D. L., Binders R. G. and Gueldner R. C. (1981) Insect growth inhibitors in crop plants. Bull. ent. Soc. Am. 27, 217–221.Google Scholar
  27. Watson T. F. (1964) Influence of host plant condition on population increase of Tetranychus telarius (Linnaeus) (Acariña: Tetranychidae). Hilgardia 35, 273–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yadava H. N., Mittal R. K. and Singh H. G. (1967) Correlation studies between leaf mid-rib structure and resistance to jassids (Empoasca dévastons Dist.) in cotton. Indian J. agric. Sci. 37, 495–497.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICIPE 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. K. Chakravarthy
    • 1
  • A. S. Sidhu
    • 1
  • Joginder Singh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyPunjab Agricultural UniversityLudhianaIndia

Personalised recommendations