Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T12:35:31.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Development and reproductive potential of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) on various plant parts of cotton cultivars/Hybrid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

V. Kumar
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 004, India
L. S. Yadav
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 004, India
A. N. Verma
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 004, India
R. K. Kashyap
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 004, India
R. Kumar
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 004, India
Get access

Abstract

The development of Helicoverpa (= Heliothis) armigera (Hb.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on foliage, squares and bolls of four cotton cultivare [G 27, HD 167 (Gossypium arboreum), H 777 and H 974 (G. hirsutum)] and one hybrid (HHH 81) was studied under controlled conditions. The results indicated that some biological parameters were influenced only by plant parts and not by cultivar/hybrid. The larvae died as first instars when reared on the foliage of cv. G 27 and HD 167. Irrespective of cultivar, the larvae and pupae weighed more when the larvae were reared on cotton bolls than on squares and foliage. The larval and pupal periods were shortest for larvae reared on bolls, followed by squares and foliage. The fecundity of the female was highest when the insect was reared on bolls, followed by foliage and squares. The longevity of the female moth was highest in insects reared on bolls, followed by insects reared on squares, and on foliage. The longevity of the male moth was not influenced by rearing on the different plant parts. The duration of the life cycle was shortest for insects reared on bolls, followed by squares and foliage.

Résumé

La croissance de Helicoverpa (= Heliothis) armigera (Hb.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) sur les feuilles, les bourgeons à fleur (non éclatés) et les capsules de quatre variétés de coton [G 27, HD 167 (G. arboreum), H 777, H 974 (G. hirsutum)] et d'un hybride (HHH 81) a été étudiée au laboratoire. Les résultats ont indiqué que certains paramètres biologiques ont été influencés seulement par les parties de la plante mais non par les variétés/hybrides. Les larves étaient mortes dès les premiers stades lorsqu'elles étaient élevées sur feuilles de cv. G 27 et HD 167. Indépendament de la variété, les larves et pupes pesaient plus lorsqu'elles étaient élevées sur des capsules de coton que sur des bourgeons et des feuilles. Les périodes larvaire et pupaie étaient les plus courtes sur des capsules, suivie des bourgeons et des feuilles. La fécondité de la femelle était plus grande lorsque l'insecte était élevé sur des capsules suivie des feuilles et des bourgeons. La longévité de la femelle du papillon de nuit était plus grande chez l'insecte élevé sur des capsules suivie des bourgeons et des feuilles. La longévité du papillon mâle n'était pas influencée par l'élevage sur différentes parties de la plante. La durée du cycle vital était minimum pour les insectes élevés sur des capsules suivie des bourgeons et des feuilles.

Type
Research Articles
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1995

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

REFERENCES

Bilapate, G. G. (1988) Investigations on Heliothis armigera (Hubner) in Marathwada—VIII. Growth and development on different host plants. J. Maharastra Agric. Univ. 13, 186188.Google Scholar
Das, M. N. and Giri, N. C. (1979) Design and Analysis of Experiment. Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi.Google Scholar
Doss, S. A. (1979) Effect of host plants on some biological aspects of the bollworm, Heliothis armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Z. Pflkrankh. Pflschutz. 86, 143147.Google Scholar
Farrar, R. R. Jr and Kennedy, G. G. (1988) 2-Undecanone, a pupal mortality factor in Heliothis zea: Sensitive stage in in-planta activity in Lycopersicon hirsutum f. glabratum. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 47, 205210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goyal, S. P. and Rathore, V. S. (1988) Patterns of insect plant relationship determining susceptibility of different hosts to Heliothis armigera (Hubner). India J. Ent. 50, 193201.Google Scholar
Kashyap, N. P. and Dhindsa, S. S. (1990) Biology and bionomics of gram pod-borer (Heliothis armigera) on pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 60, 157158.Google Scholar
Kashyap, R. K. (1983) Studies on resistance behaviour of tomato genotypes against fruit borer, Heliothis armigera (Hubner). Ph.D. Dissertation, Haryana Univ., Hisar, India.Google Scholar
Kashyap, R. K. and Verma, A. N. (1987) Development and survival of fruit borer, Heliothis armigera (Hubner), on resistant and susceptible tomato genotypes. Z. Pflkrankh. Pflschutz. 94, 1421.Google Scholar
Pretorius, L. M. (1976) Laboratory studies on the developmental and reproductive performance of Heliothis armigera (Hubn.) on various food plants, J. Ent. Soc. Sth. Afr. 39, 337343.Google Scholar
Saxena, K. N. (1969) Patterns of insect-plant relationship determining susceptibility or resistance of different plants to an insect. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 12, 751766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, S. K. (1978) Studies on the biology and extent of damage of gram pod borer, Heliothis armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). M.Sc. Thesis, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, India.Google Scholar
Singh, J., Sandhu, S. S. and Sindhu, A. S. (1992) Biology of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubn.) on commonly cultivated cultivare of cotton in Punjab. J. Insect Sci. 5, 9192.Google Scholar