Advertisement

Damage potential and seasonality of the sapodilla bud borer Anarsia achrasella (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in India

  • P. D. Kamala JayanthiEmail author
  • Abraham Verghese
  • Honnamma Rani
  • D. K. Nagaraju
Article

Abstract

The gelechid bud borer Anarsia achrasella (Latreille) has become an increasingly serious pest of sapodilla Manilkara zapota Van Royen in India. The objective of the present study was to estimate the pest damage potential and determine the influence of abiotic factors and plant phenology on the pest incidence. The results indicate that each larva of A. achrasella could damage up to 36.9–46.6 buds before reaching pupation. Correlation analysis indicates that the pest incidence is not influenced by plant phenology and that the effect of abiotic factors is minimal. Of all weather parameters studied, only minimum temperature and wind speed correlated significantly with bud borer infestation. The linear and non-linear analyses showed that, in the case of minimum temperature, polynomial model order (2) Y = 0.4108x2 − 11.95x + 92.329 was found to explain 46% of the variability in bud borer incidence. However, in the case of wind speed, none of the tried models could explain variability in A. achrasella incidence beyond 53%. The implications of these results are discussed.

Key words

Anarsia achrasella Manilkara zapota pest incidence plant phenology biotic and abiotic factors 

Mots clés

Anarsia achrasella Manilkara zapota dégâts phénologie de la plante facteurs biotiques et abiotiques 

Résumé

En Inde, le géléchide foreur de bourgeon, Anarsia achrasella (Latreille) est devenu un ravageur de plus en plus important de la sapotille Manilkara zapota Van Royen. L’objectif de cette étude est d’estimer les pertes potentielles et de déterminer l’influence des facteurs abiotiques et de la phénologie de la plante sur les dégâts. Les résultats montrent que chaque larve de A. achrasella peut endommager entre 36,9 et 46,6 bourgeons avant d’effectuer sa nymphose Une analyse de corrélations indique que l’incidence du ravageur n’est pas influencée par le stade phénologique de la plante et que les facteurs abiotiques sont peu importants. Parmi tous les facteurs climatiques étudiés seules la température minimale et la vitesse du vent sont corrélées avec le niveau d’infestation. Les analyses de corrélations linéaires et non linéaires montrent que lorsque la température est minimale, le modèle polynomial d’ordre (2) Y = 0.4108x2 − 11.95x + 92.329 explique 46% de la variabilité de l’incidence du foreur. Toutefois, dans le cas de la vitesse du vent, aucun modèle ne peut expliquer la variabilité de l’incidence de A. achrasella au-delà de 53%. Les implications de ces résultats sont discutées.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abu-Baker F. and Abdul-Karim M. N. B. (1990) Microflora of ciku (Achros sapota L.) of variety Jantung. Pertanika 13, 211–215.Google Scholar
  2. Butani D. K. (1975) Insect pests of fruit crops and their control, sapota. Pesticides 9, 37–39.Google Scholar
  3. Butani D. K. (Ed.) (1979) Insects of Fruit Crops. Periodical Expert Book Agency, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. 415 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Jayanthi P. D. K. and Verghese A. (2001) Report on parasitoids of sapodilla bud borer, Anarsia spp. Insect Environment 7, 46–47.Google Scholar
  5. Jayanthi P. D. K. and Verghese A. (2003) Calendar of seasonal incidence and pest-vigil for major sapodilla pests. Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems 9, 97–102.Google Scholar
  6. Jyothi B. D. and Tandon P. L. (1994) Bionomics of sapodilla bud borer, Anarsia achrasella (Bradley) (Lepidoptera: Gelechidae). Journal of Entomological Research 18, 135–251.Google Scholar
  7. Mickel Bart M. V. (1996) Sapodilla: a potential crop for subtropical climates, pp. 439–446. In Progress in New Crops (Edited by J. Janick). ASHS Press, Alexandria, Virginia.Google Scholar
  8. Morton J. F. (1987) Fruits of Warm Climates. Creative Resources Systems, Winterville, North Carolina [distributed by J.F. Morton, miami, Florida].Google Scholar
  9. Parvathi C. and Belavadi V. V. (1994) Seasonal incidence of Anarsia achrasella Bradley (Lepidoptera: Gelechidae) and the significance of its damage to sapodilla. International Journal of Pest Management 40, 18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Patil R. H. (1986) Studies on insects infesting sapodilla (Achras sapodilla L.) with special reference to biology and chemical control of flower bud borer. MSc (Agric.) Thesis, Submitted to UAS, Dharwad.Google Scholar
  11. Patil R. H. and Puttaswamy (1998) Biology of the sapodilla bud borer, Anarsia achrasella Bradley (Lepidoptera: Gelechidae) in Karnataka. Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems 4, 40–42.Google Scholar
  12. Pennington T. D. (Ed.) (1990) Sapotaceae. Flora Neotropica, Monograph 52. New York Botanical Garden, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Ravoof A. A. (1964) Occurrence of a gelechid pest on sapodilla. South Indian Horticulture 12, 28.Google Scholar
  14. Relekar P. P., Desai A. G., Rajput J. C. and Salvi M. J. (1991) Fruit production in sapota cv. Kalipatti. Current Research 20, 104–106.Google Scholar
  15. Rubino-Espina E. (1968) Estudio preliminar de los insectos perjudiciales a los arboles de nispero (Achras zapota Linnaeus) en el estado Zulia, Venezuela. Revista de la Facultad Agronomía 1, 1–24.Google Scholar
  16. Sandhu G. S. and Sran C. S. (1980) New record of Lepidoptera on sapodilla. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin 28, 43–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICIPE 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. D. Kamala Jayanthi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Abraham Verghese
    • 1
  • Honnamma Rani
    • 1
  • D. K. Nagaraju
    • 1
  1. 1.Indian Institute of Horticultural ResearchBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations