Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T02:31:11.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2007

V. Selvanarayanan  and
P. Narayanasamy
V. Selvanarayanan*
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Annamalai University-608002, Tamil Nadu, India
P. Narayanasamy
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Annamalai University-608002, Tamil Nadu, India
*
*Email: vselvaa@satyam.net.in/cdl_selvam@sancharnet.in
Get access

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.

Keywords

tomatoHelicoverpa armigeraresistanceantixenosisfeedingoviposition
Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 201 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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
Berlinger, M. J. (1986) Pests, pp. 391–442. In The tomato crop: a scientific basis for improvement (Edited by Atherton, J. G. and Rudich, J.Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Fery, R. L., Cuthbert, F. P. Jr. (1975) Antibiosis in Lycopersicon to the tomato fruit worm ( Heliothis zea ). J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 10, 276–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallun, G. L. (1972) Genetic inter-relationship between host plants and insects. J. Environ. Qual. 1, 259–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilardon, E., Pocori, M. and Hernandez, C., Olsen, A. (2001) Role of tomato leaf glandular trichomes in oviposition of Tuta absoluta. Posuquisa Agropecuaria Brasileria 36, 585–588.Google Scholar
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
Juvik, J. A., Berlinger, M. J., Ben David, T. and Rudich, J., 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
Kashyap, R. K., Kennedy, G. G., 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
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
Maluf, W. R., Barbosa, L. V., 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
Panda, N. and Khush, G. S. (1995) Host Plant Resistance to Insects. CAB International, UK. 431 pp.Google Scholar
Rath, P. C., 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
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
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
Selvanarayanan, V., 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 Ignacimuthu, S. and Alok, Sen). Phoenix Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, India.Google Scholar