Advertisement

International Journal of Tropical Insect Science

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 201–206 | Cite as

Antixenosis resistance in tomato to the fruit borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner)

  • V. SelvanarayananEmail author
  • P. Narayanasamy
Article

Abstract

Antixenosis resistance to Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) was studied in 10 tomato accessions selected from a germplasm of 321 at Tamil Nadu, India, using free-choice and no-choice laboratory experiments. The foliage and fruits of two accessions, namely PT 4287 and Varushanadu Local were the least preferred for feeding in both tests. In the no-choice (confinement) test, Seijima Jeisei, Varushanadu Local and PT 4287 were the most preferred for oviposition, but had low egg hatch rates. In the free-choice test, these accessions were the least preferred for oviposition. The first and second instars preferred to feed on the foliage of 30- and 45-day-old plants, respectively than 60- and 75-day-old plants, whereas ovipositional preference was insignificant among the various plant ages.

Key words

tomato Helicoverpa armigera resistance antixenosis feeding oviposition 

Résumé

La résistance antixénotique à Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) a été étudiée expérimentalement au laboratoire sur 10 variétés de tomates sélectionnées à partir d’un germoplasme de 321 variétés, à Tamil Nadu en Inde, en situation de choix et de non choix. Les feuilles et les fruits des deux variétés PT 4287 et Varushanadu ont été les moins préférées lors des deux essais de prise de nourriture. En situation de non choix, Seijima leisei, Varushanadu et PT 4287 ont été les plus préférées pour la ponte mais avec un taux déclosion faible. En situation de choix, ces variétés ont été les moins préférées pour l’oviposition. Les premiers et seconds stades préfôrent se nourrir respectivement des feuilles des plantes âgées de 30 et 45 jours plutôt que des plantes âgées de 60 et 75 jours, alors qu’aucune différence significative n’est observée sur la ponte parmi les plantes de différents âges.

Mots clés

tomate Helicoverpa armigera résistance antixénose prise de nourriture oviposition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barbour J. D., Farrar R. R. Jr. and Kennedy G. G. (1993) Interaction of Manduca sexta resistance in tomato with insect predators of Helicoverpa zea. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 68, 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berlinger M. J. (1986) Pests, pp. 391–442. In The tomato crop: a scientific basis for improvement (Edited by J. G. Atherton and J. Rudich). Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cosenza G. W. and Green H. B. (1979) Behaviour of the tomato fruit worm, Heliothis zea (Boddie) on susceptible and resistant lines of processing tomatoes. Hort. Sci. 14, 171–173.Google Scholar
  4. Fery R. L. and Cuthbert R P. Jr. (1975) Antibiosis in Lycopersicon to the tomato fruit worm (Heliothis zea). J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 10, 276–278.Google Scholar
  5. Gallun G. L. (1972) Genetic inter-relationship between host plants and insects. J. Environ. Qual. 1, 259–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gilardon E., Pocori M., Hernandez C. and Olsen A. (2001) Role of tomato leaf glandular trichomes in oviposition of Tuta absoluta. Posuquisa Agropecuaria Brasileria 36, 585–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gomez K. A. and Gomez A. A. (1984) Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. A Wiley International Science Publication, John Wiley and Sons, New Delhi. 680 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Juvik J. A., Berlinger M. J., Ben David T., Rudich J. and David T. (1982) Resistance among accessions of the genera Lycopersicon and Solanum to four of the main insect pests of tomato in Israel. Phytoparasitica 10, 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kashyap R. K., Kennedy G. G. and Farrar R. R. Jr. (1991) Mortality and inhibition of Helicoverpa zea egg parasitism rates by Trichogramma in relation to trichome/methyl ketone mediated insect resistance of Lycopersicon hirsutum f. glabratum, accession PI 134417. J. Chem. Ecol. 17, 2381–2395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kauffman W. C. and Kennedy G. G. (1989) Inhibition of Campoletis sonorensis parasitism of Heliothis zea and of parasitoid development by 2-tridecanone-mediated insect resistance of wild tomato. J. Chem. Ecol. 15, 1919–1930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Maluf W. R., Barbosa L. V. and Santa-Cecilia L.V.C. (1997) 2-Tridecanone-mediated mechanisms followed by resistance to the South American tomato pinworm, Scrobipalpuloides absoluta (Meyric, 1917) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in Lycopersicon spp. Euphytica 93, 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Panda N. and Khush G. S. (1995) Host Plant Resistance to Insects. CAB International, UK 431 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Rath P. C. and Nath P. (1997) Screening of some tomato genotypes for susceptibility to the fruit borer Helicoverpa armigera Hübner at Varanasi. Veg. Sci. 24, 153–156.Google Scholar
  14. Rodriguez B. A., Leigh T. F. and Lange W. H. (1982) Oviposition site preference by the tomato fruitworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on tomato, with notes on plant phenology. J. Econ. Ent. 75, 895–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sankhyan S. and Verma A. K. (1993) Life fecundity tables for the tomato fruit borer Heliothis armigera (Hübner) on tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. Pest Manage. Eco. Zool. 1, 80–84.Google Scholar
  16. Selvanarayanan V. and Narayanasamy P. (2002) Resistance of tomato accessions against the fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner), pp. 134–141. In Strategies in Integrated Pest Management: Current trends and Future Prospects (Edited by S. Ignacimuthu and Alok Sen). Phoenix Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICIPE 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Entomology, Faculty of AgricultureAnnamalai UniversityIndia

Personalised recommendations