| تعداد نشریات | 282 |
| تعداد نشریات سازمان | 80 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 3,262 |
| تعداد مقالات | 36,058 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 55,184,410 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 94,183,871 |
Effect of different tomato cultivars on some biological characteristics of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner, 1808) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) under lab conditions | ||
| Journal of Entomological Society of Iran | ||
| مقاله 2، دوره 37، 4 (Supplementary) - شماره پیاپی 72، خرداد 2018، صفحه 479-492 اصل مقاله (213.1 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Second Iranian International Congress of Entomology | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22117/jesi.2018.115697.1143 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| A. Jooyandeh1؛ N. Moeini Naghadeh* 2؛ Hassan Ali Vahedi3؛ Ali Hosseini Gharalari4 | ||
| 1faculty member/Agricultural and natural resources Researches center of Khorasan Razavi | ||
| 2Department of Plant protection, Collge of Agriculture, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran | ||
| 3Associate Professor of Department of Plant Protection, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran. | ||
| 4Agricultural Entomology Research Department, Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Development, body weight and reproduction of the tomato fruit worm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner), were studied at 26 ± 1°C; 60 ± 10 % RH and a light: dark cycle of 16:8 h on ten tomato cultivars: ‘Aras’, ‘Atrak’, ‘Korall’, ‘Mobil’, ‘Rio Grande Hed’, ‘Sivand’, ‘Super Chief’, ‘Super Mobil’, ‘Super Queen’ and ‘Super Urbana’ in the laboratory. The shortest larval duration was recorded on ‘Super Chief’ (18.98 ± 0.94 days) while the longest was seen on ‘Super Queen’(22.07 ± 0.32 days). The developmental time of immature stages ranged from 37.62 ± 0.24 days on ‘Super Chief’ to 42.69 ± 0.48 days on ‘Super Queen’. Pupal period ranged from 11.60 ± 0.32 days to 13.19 ± 0.15 days on ‘Aras’ and ‘Super Queen’, respectively. Maximum pupal weight was 323.67 ± 4.56 mg on ‘Aras’ and was minimum on ‘Super Queen’ (200.83 ± 3.03 mg). The maximum and minimum female longevity was observed on ‘Atrak’ (14.78 ± 0.39 days) and ‘Super Queen’ (12.77 ± 0.86 days), respectively. The life time of males ranged from 7.20 ± 0.20 days on ‘Super Mobil’ to 9.22 ± 0.17 days on ‘Mobil’. The mean number of eggs deposited on different cultivars varied with 360.25 ± 21.15 eggs on ‘Korall’ in 8.83 ± 0.43 days and 160.68 ± 22.37 eggs on ‘Super Queen’ in 8.35 ± 0.44 days. It could be concluded that ‘Korall’, followed by ‘Aras’ and ‘Super Chief’ were suitable and ‘Super Queen’ and ‘Super Urbana’ were unsuitable cultivars for growth and development of H. armigera larvae. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Development period؛ Body weight؛ fecundity؛ tomato fruit worm؛ tomato | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| بررسی اثر ارقام گوجه‌فرنگی بر برخی از ویژگی‌های زیستی کرم میوه گوجه‌فرنگی Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner, 1808) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) در شرایط آزمایشگاهی | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| علی جوینده1؛ ناصر معینی نقده2؛ حسنعلی واحدی3؛ علی حسینی قرالری4 | ||
| 1عضو هیات علمی مرکز تحقیقات کشاورزی ومنابع طبیعی خراسان رضوی | ||
| 2دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه، ایران | ||
| 3دانشیار گروه گیاه پزشکی، دانشکده کشاورزی، پردیس کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه رازی کرمانشاه | ||
| 4بخش تحقیقات حشره شناسی کشاورزی، موسسه تحقیقات گیاه پزشکی کشور، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| طول دوره‌ی رشد ، وزن بدن و باروری کرم میوه گوجه فرنگی، Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) ، در شرایط آزمایشگاهی و در شرایط دمایی 1 ± 26 درجه سلسیوس، رطوبت نسبی10 ± 60 درصد و دوره نوری 16 ساعت روشنایی و 8 ساعت تاریکی روی ده رقم گوجه فرنگی (ارس، اترک، کورال، موبیل، ریوگرند هد، سیوند، سوپرچف، سوپر موبیل، سوپر کویین و سوپر اوربانا) مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. کوتاه ترین میانگین طول دوره لاروی روی رقم سوپرچف (94/0 ± 98/18 روز) و طولانی ترین آن در رقم سوپر کویین (32/0 ± 07/22 روز) به‌دست آمد. میانگین طول دوره رشدی مراحل نابالغ از 24/0 ± 62/37 روز در رقم سوپرچف تا 48/0 ± 69/42 روز در رقم سوپرکویین ثبت گردید. میانگین طول دوره شفیرگی از 32/0 ± 60/11 روز در رقم ارس تا 19/0 ± 19/13 روز در رقم سوپرکویین متفاوت بود. بیشترین وزن شفیره در رقم ارس با 56/4 ± 323 میلی‌گرم و کمترین آن در رقم سوپرکویین با 03/3 ± 83/200 میلی‌گرم ثبت شد. حداکثر و حداقل طول عمر حشره ماده به ترتیب در ارقام اترک (39/0 ± 78//14روز) و سوپرکویین (86/0 ± 77/12روز) مشاهده گردید. همچنین دامنه طول عمر حشر نر در ارقام مختلف از 20/0 ± 20/7 روز در رقم سوپرموبیل تا 17/0 ± 22/9 روز در رقم موبیل به‌دست آمد. میانگین تعداد تخم گذاشته شده توسط هر فرد ماده در ارقام مختلف متفاوت بود بطوریکه بیشترین آن در رقم کورال (15/21 ± 25/360 عدد) در مدت43/0 ± 83/8 روز و کمترین آن در رقم سوپرکویین (37/22 ± 68/160 عدد) در مدت 44/0 ± 35/8 روز مشاهده شد. می‌توان نتیجه گرفت که کورال و به دنبال آن ارس و سوپر چف ارقام مناسب و سوپر کویین و سوپر اوربانا ارقام نامناسبی برای رشد و نمو لاروهای H. armigera بودند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| طول دوره‌ی رشد, وزن بدن, باروری, کرم میوه گوجه‌فرنگی, گوجه‌فرنگی | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Ambule, A.T., Radadia, G.G., Patil, D.L. & Toke, N.R. (2015) Morphological characters of tomato in relation to resistance against tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). International Journal of Plant Protection 8 (1), 152-156. Awmack, C.S. & Leather, S.R. (2002)Host plant quality and fecundity in herbivorous insects. Annual Review of Entomology 47, 817- 844. Behdad, E. (1996) Iranian Plant Protection Encyclopedia, Pests, Disease & Weeds. Vol. 2, pp. 1269-1273. Yadboud Press. Esfahan. [In Persian] Cunningham, J.P. & Zalucki, M.P. (2014) Understanding heliothine (Lepidoptera: Heliothinae) pests: What is a host plant? Journal of Economic Entomology 107, 881–896. Farid, A. (1986) Study of bollworm Heliothis armigera (Hub.) on tomato in Jyroft and Kahnuj. Applied Entomology and Phytopathology 54, 15–24. [In Persian] Fitt, G.P. (1989) The ecology of Heliothis species in relation to agroecosystems. Annual Review of Entomology 34, 17–52. Hemati, S.A., Naseri, B., & Razmjou, J. (2013)Reproductive performance and growth indices of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on various host plants. Journal of Crop Protection 2 (2), 193-208. Hugar, S.V., Sharma, H.C. & Goud, K.B. (2014)Pigeonpea genotypes influence parasitization preference and survival and development of the Helicoverpa armigera larval parasitoid, Campoletis chlorideae. SpringerPlus 3:378. Available from: http://www.springerplus.com/content/3/1/378 (accessed 10 May 2016). Kashyap, R.K. & Verma, A.N. (1987) Factors imparting resistance to fruit damage by Heliothis armigera (Hubner) in some tomato phenotypes. Insect Science and Application 8, 111-114. Kennedy, G.G. (2003) Tomato, pests, parasitoids and predators: tritrophic interactions involving the genus Lycopersicon. Annual Review of Entomology 48, 51–72. Kouhi, D., Naseri, B. and Golizadeh A. (2014)Nutritional performance of the tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera, on different tomato cultivars. Journal of Insect Science 14(102). Available from: http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1673/031.014.102 (accessed 27 June 2016). Kranthi, K.R., Jadhav, D.R., Kranthi, S., Wanjari, R.R., Ali, S.S. & Russell, D.A. (2002) Insecticide resistance in five major insect pests of cotton in India. Crop Protection 21, 449-460 Leuck, D.B. & Perkins, W.D. (1972) A method of estimating fall armyworm progeny reduction when evaluating control achived host-plant resistance. Journal of Economic Entomology 65, 482-483. Li, Y., Hill, C. B. and Hartmen, G. L. (2004) Effect of three resistant soybean genotypes on the fecundity, mortality and maturation of soybean aphid (Homptera: Aphidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 97, 1106-1111. Liu, Z., Li, D., Gong, P.Y. & Wu, K.J. (2004) Life table studies of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), on different host plants. Environmental Entomology 33, 1570-1576. Mojeni, T.D., Bayat Asadi, H., Noori Ganbalani, G. & Shojaei, M. (2005) Study on bioregional aspects of bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in the cotton fields of Golestan province. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 11(2), 97-116. [In Persian with English summary] Muthukumaran, N. (2016) Biophysical and Biochemical Factors of Resistance in Tomato Accessions as Influenced by Selected Bioinoculants against Fruit Worm Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 5 (1), 252-262. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2016.501.024(accessed 27 May 2017). Nadeem, S., Shafique, M., Hamed, M., Atta, B.M. & Shah, T.M. (2010) Evaluation of advanced chickpea genotypes for resistance to pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Science 47, 132-135. Naseri, B., Fathipour, Y., Moharramipour, S. & Hosseininaveh, V. (2009) Comparative life history and fecundity of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubnes) (Lepidopeia; Noctuidae ) on different soybean varieties. Entomological Science 12, 147-154. Naseri, B., Fathipour, Y., Moharramipour, S. & Hosseininaveh, V. (2010) Nutritional indices of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera, on 13 soybean varieties. Journal of Insect Science 10(151), 1-14. Available online: http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1673/031.010.1411. (accessed 27 September 2016). Nemati Kalkhoran, M., Naseri, B., Rahimi Namin, F. & Kouhi, D. (2013) Life table parameters and digestive enzymes activity of Helicoverpa armigera (Lep.: Noctuidae) on different tomato cultivars. Journal of Entomological Society of Iran 33(2), 45-58. Razmjou, J., Bahram Naseri, B. & Hemati, S.A. (2014) Comparative performance of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on various host plants. Journal of Pesticide Science 87, 29–37. Safuraie-Parizi, S., Fathipour, Y. & Talebi, A. (2014)Evaluation of tomato cultivars to Helicoverpa armigera using two-sex life table parameters in laboratory. J. Asia-Pacific Entomology 17, 837–844. SAS Institute Inc. (2003) GLM: A Guide to Statistical and Data Analysis, version 9.1. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina. Selvanarayanan, V. & Narayanasamy, P. (2004)Antixenosis resistance in tomato against fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 24(3), 201-206. Selvanarayanan, V. & Narayanasamy, P. (2006)Factors of resistance in tomato accessions against the fruit worm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Crop Protection 25, 1075–1079. Sharma, H.C., Pampapathy, G., Lanka, S.K. & Ridsdill- Smith, T. J. (2005)Antibiosis mechanism of resistance to pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera in wild varieties of chickpea. Euphytica 142, 107-115. Sharma, H.C., Singh, B.U., Hariprasad, K.V. & Bramel-Cox, P. J. (1999) Host-plant resistance to insects in integrated pest management for a safer environment. Proceedings, Academy of Environmental Biology 8, 113–136. Sharma, K.C., Bhardwaj, S.C. & Sunil, K. (2008) Biochemical factors of resistance in tomato varieties against fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera. Environment and Ecology 26, 1135-1137. Singh, O.P. & Parihar, S.B.B. (1988) Effect of different hosts on the development of Heliothis armigera Hub. Bulletin of Entomology 29, 168-172. Tamhane, V.A., Giri, A.P., Gupta, V.S. (2007). Helicoverpa armigera: ecology and control using novel biotechnological approaches. pp. 232-236 in: Pimentel D. (ed.) Encyclopedia of pest management, 728 pp., Volume II, CRC Press Inc,. Teakle, R.E. (1991)Laboratory culture of Heliothis species and identification of disease. pp. 22-29. In: Zalucki, M.P. (Ed) Heliothis: Research Methods and Prospects, 234pp., Springer Verlag. Torres-Vila, L.M., Rodriguez–Molina, M.C. & Lacasa-Plasencia, A. (2003) Impact of Helicoverpa armigera larval density and crop phenology yield and quality losses in processing tomato: developing fruit count on based damage thresholds for IPM decision –making. Crop Protection 22, 521-532. Usman, A. & Khan, I.A. (2012)Ovipositional response of tomato fruit worm (Helicoverpa armigera) (Hubner) to different tomato genotypes under agro-ecological conditions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – Pakistan. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture 28(2), 277-281. van Lenteren, J.C. & Noldus L.P.J.J. (1990) Whitefly-plant relationship: behavioral and ecological aspects, pp. 47-89. In Gerling, D. (ed.) Whitefly: their bionomics, pest status and management. Intercept, Andover, U.K. Wilson, L.J., Fitt, G.P. & Mensah, R.K. (1998) INGRAD cotton-its role in cotton IPM. pp. 267-276 In: Zalucki, M.P., Drew, R.A.I., White, G.G. (Eds.) Pest management-Future Challenges. University of Queensland Press, Brisbane, Zalucki, M.P., Daglish, G., Firempong, S., Twine, P.H. (1986) The biology and ecology of Heliothis armigera (Hubner) and H. punctigera Wallengren (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae) in Australia: What do we know? Australian Journal of Zoology 34, 779-814. Zalucki, M.P., Murray, D.A.H., Gregg, P.C., Fitt, G.P., Twine, P.H., & Jones, C. (1994) Ecology of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) and H. punctigera (Wallengren) in the inland of Australia: larval sampling and host plant relationships during winter and spring. Australian Journal of Zoology 42(3), 329-346. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 892 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,019 |
||