Advertisement

Seasonal Bionomics of Heliothis Armigera (Hubner)(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Terai Belt of Northeastern Uttar Pradesh

  • S. R. Tripathi
  • Rajesh Singh
Research Article

Abstract

Heliothis armigera (Hubner) completed five generations in the laboratory, as well as in the field, in a year. The first generation was completed from the first week of December to the fourth week of February, the second generation from the second week of February to first week of April. The third generation from third week of August passing through the extreme summer, the fourth generation during monsoon period and the fifth last generation from the third week of September to the fourth week of November. The seasonal variation in generation time is largely due to extreme variations in ecological factors, temperature (10–45°C), photoperiod (10–14 hr), relative humidity (15–95%) and rainfall. These factors also affect the percentage of pupation, emergence and fecundity of the female moths. Males outnumbered the females in the first, second and fifth generation. The females lived longer than males in all generations.

Key Words

Lepidoptera Noctuidae Heliothis armigera seasonal bionomics 

Résumé

Heliothis armigera (Hubner) comporte 5 générations par an aussi bien en laboratoire que dans les conditions naturelles. La première génération est achevée entre la première semaine de décembre et la quatrième semaine de février, la deuxième entre la seconde semaine de février et la première semaine d’avril. La troisième génération a partir de la troisième semaine d’août et à travers les conditions rudes de l’été; la quatrième génération pendant la période de la mousson et la cinquième et dernière génération, entre la troisième semaine de septembre et la quatrième semaine de novembre. La fluctuation saisonnière quant à la durée d’une génération est essentiellement liée à la variation extrême dans les facteurs écologiques: température (10–45°C), la photopériode (10–14 h), l’humidité relative (15–95%) et la pluviométrie. Ces facteurs affectent également le pourcentage de pupaison et d’émergence, et la fécondité des femelles. Les mâles surpassent en nombre les femelles dans la première, deuxième, et cinquième génération. Les femelles vivent plus longtemps que les mâles quelque soit la génération considérée.

Mots Clés

Lepidoptera Noctuidae Heliothis armigera bionomie saisonnière 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bhatnagar V. S. and Davies J. C. (1978) Factors affecting populations of gram pod borer, Heliothis armigera in the period 1974-77 at Patancheru (A.P.). Bull. Entomol. 10, 52–64.Google Scholar
  2. Browning T. O. (1981) Ecdysteroid and diapause in pupae of Heliothis armigera. J. Insect Physiol. 27, 715–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Butler G. D., Wilson L. T. and Henneberry T. J. (1985) Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae): Initiation of summer diapause. J. Econ. Entomol. 28, 320–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chaudhary J. P. and Sharma S. K. (1981) Biology of gram pod borer Heliothis armigera in Haryana state. Bull. Entomol. 22, 101–112.Google Scholar
  5. Coaker T. H. (1959) Investigations on Heliothis armigera in Uganda. Bull. Entomol. Res. 50, 487–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fitt G. P. (1989) The ecology of Heliothis species in relation to agroecosystems. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 34, 17–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Henneberry T. J. and Butler G. D. (1986) Effect of high temperature on tobacco bud worm (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae): reproduction, diapause and spermatocyst development. J. Earn. Entomol. 79, 410–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hsu Ming-Shia, Chang Guang Shio and Chu Hung Fu (1960) A study on cotton boll worm Heliothis armigera: Act. Oecol. Entomol. Sin. 1, 18–30. Sources: Rev. appl. Entomol. 48, 9.Google Scholar
  9. Megahed M. M., Ismail I.I., and Abdel Maksoud Z. M. (1977) A contribution to the study of biology of the lesser cotton leaf worm, Spodoptera exigua (Hb). Zancol: (A) Sci. J. Sul. Univ. 3, 1–17.Google Scholar
  10. Nadagauda D. and Pitre H. (1983) Development, fecundity and longevity of the tobacco bud worm (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae) fed on soybean, cotton and artificial diet at three temperatures. Environ. Entomol. 12, 582–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Patel R. C., Patel P. B., and Singh R. (1964) Mass breeding of Heliothis armigera (Hub.). India J. Entomol. 30, 272–280.Google Scholar
  12. Reed W. (1965) Heliothis armigera (Hub) in Western Tanganyika I. Biology with special reference to the pupal stage. II. Ecology and natural and chemical control. Bull. Entomol. Res. 56, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Reed W. and Pawar C. S. (1982) Heliothis; a global problem. Proc. Int. workshop Heliothis management, Patancheru, India, 1981. Patancheru, ICRISAT, pp. 9–14.Google Scholar
  14. Singh H. and Singh G. (1975) Biological studies on Heliothis armigera in Punjab. Indian J. Entomol. 37, 154–164.Google Scholar
  15. Tripathi S. R. and Sharma S. K. (1984) Biology of Heliothis armigera in Terai belt of North eastern Uttar Pradesh. G. it. Entomol. 2, 215–222.Google Scholar
  16. Tripathi S. R. and Sharma S. K. (1989) Population dynamics of Heliothis armigera on chick pea. G. it. Entomol. 4, 223–228.Google Scholar
  17. Tripathi S. R. and Singh R. (1989) Effect of different pulses on development, growth and reproduction of Heliothis armigera. Insect Sci. Applic. 10, 145–148.Google Scholar
  18. Tripathi S. R. and Singh R. (1991) Population dynamics of Helicoverpa armigera. Insect Sci. Applic. 12, 369–374.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICIPE 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. R. Tripathi
    • 1
  • Rajesh Singh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of GorakhpurGorakhpurIndia

Personalised recommendations