آنتی زنوز چهار رقم گوجه‌فرنگی به کرم میوه‌ی گوجه‌فرنگی
محورهای موضوعی : حشره شناسی گیاهان زراعی
کلید واژه: مقاومت, ترجیح تخم‌ریزی, ترجیح غذایی, گوجه‌فرنگی, Helicoverpa armigera,
چکیده مقاله :
کرم میوه ی گوجه فرنگی (Lep.: Noctuidae) Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) از آفات مهم گوجه فرنگی در ایران و جهان می باشد که خسارت قابل توجهی به محصول وارد می نماید. یکی از روش های کنترل این آفت، استفاده از مقاومت گیاهی است. در این بررسی، آنتی زنوز چهار رقم گوجه فرنگی سوپربتا، سوپرلونا، سوپرچیف و کاجی ان3 در برابر این آفت مورد مطالعه قرار گرفت. برای این منظور، دو سری آزمایش دارای انتخاب برای بررسی ترجیح تغذیه ی لاروها و تخم ریزی حشرات کامل انجام گردید. در آزمایش اول، بریده های 1500 میلی‌متر مربعی برگ هر چهار رقم در چهار جهت یک ظرف پتری در 10 تکرار در قالب طرح کاملاً تصادفی (CRD) توزیع شدند و 10 لارو سن سوم از مرکز ظرف رهاسازی شدند. بعد از 1، 6، 12، 18 و 24 ساعت، مساحت برگ خورده شده با استفاده از کاغذ شطرنجی اندازه گیری شد. در آزمایش دوم نیز چهار رقم مورد نظر در چهار گلدان پلاستیکی کاشته و با ترتیب تصادفی کنار هم چیده شدند و زیر یک چادر توری محبوس شدند. پنج جفت حشره ی کامل نر و ماده زیر هر چادر رهاسازی و پنج روز بعد تعداد تخم گذاشته شده توسط آن ها روی هر رقم شمارش شد. آزمایش در چهار تکرار با طرح کاملاً تصادفی اجرا شد. آنتی زنوز فقط به صورت ترجیح غذایی لاروها به دو رقم کی جی ان 3 و سوپرلونا مشاهده شد و ترجیح تخم ریزی در ماده ها وجود نداشت.
Tomato fruit worm (TFW(, Helicoverpa armigera Hübner (Lep.: Noctuidae) is one of the most important pests of tomato in Iran and the globe, which has considerable damage on the crop. A pest control technique is using plant resistant. The resistance of four varieties "Super Beta", "Super Luna", "Super Chief" and "KJN3" was evaluated against TFW. For this purpose, two sets of experiments were conducted in choice tests to surveying feeding preference of larvae as well as oviposition preference of adults. In the first experiment, 1500 mm2 leaf cuts from the four varieties randomly distributed in four sides of a Petri dish in 10 replications as a Completely Randomized Design (CRD). Afterwards, 10 third instar larvae were released from the center of the dishes. After 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 hours, the area of eaten leaves was measured by a matrix sheet. At the second experiment, the four varieties were planted in plastic pots and put in a random order beside each other beneath a cloth net. Five pairs of male and female TFW were released inside nets and five days later, the number of eggs laid upon each variety was counted. This experiment was conducted as CRD with four replications. Antixenosis was observed as feeding preference of larvae toward KJN3 and Super Luna. There was no ovipositing preference towards different varieties among female moths.
Adkisson PL, Dyck VA. 1980. Resistant varieties in pest management system, Pp. 233-253 in: PG Maxwell and PR Jenning (eds.), Breeding Plants Resistant to Insects. Wiley, New York.
Adldoost H. 2009. Study of Population fluctuations of the damaging species Heliothis / Helicoverpa (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and the non-living and living factors controlling their populations on cotton, peas and tomatoes from the West Azerbaijan. Agriculture and Natural Resources Research Center of West Azerbaijan. 15 pp. [In Persian]
Anonymous. 2001. Agricultural Statistics. Agricultural and Horticultural crops in 1389-1388 Vol. 1 Publication No. 83/06. Ministry of Agriculture, Planning and Economic Affairs. Office of Statistics and Information Technology, Ministry of Agriculture. 137 pp. [In Persian]
Armes NJ, Jadhav DR, deSouza KR. 1996. A survey of insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armigera in the Indian subcontinent.Bulletin of Entomological Research 86(5): 499-514.
Banerjee MK, Kalloo G. 1989. Role of Phenols in resistant to tomato leaf curl virus, Fusarium wilt and fruit borer in Lycopersicon. Current Science 58 (10): 575-576.
Bergman JM, Tingey CL. 1979. Aspects of the interaction between plant genotypes and biological control. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 25: 275-279.
Broadley RH, Butler DG. 1983. Longevity of adult Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Queensland Journal of Agricultural and Animal Sciences 40(10): 27-28.
Cosenza GW, Green HB. 1979. Behavior of the tomato fruit worm, Heliothis zea (Boddie), on susceptible and resistant lines of processing tomatoes. Hort. Science 14(2): 171-173.
Dhandapani N, Balasubramanlan M. 1984. Live table studies of gram pod borer, Heliothis armigera (Hubner) on tomato. Indian Journal of Entomology 46(4): 447-451.
Ferry RL, Guthbert FP. 1974. Resistance of tomato cultivars to the fruitworm, Heliothis zea (boddie). Hort. Science 9(5): 469-470.
Fowler G, Lakin K. 2001. Risk Assessment: The old Bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner), (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), pp. 1-19. USDA-APHIS, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology (Internal Report), Raleigh, NC.
Jesmi GR. 1998. Biology of tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.)in Khuzestan.Proceedings of the 13th Iranian Plant Protection Congress (Vol.1-Pests), 23-27 August 1998, Karaj junior College of Agriculture, Karaj, Iran. P. 82.
Kennedy GG. 1984. 2-Tridecanone, tomatoes and Heliothis zea. Potential incompatibility of plant antibiosis with insecticidal control. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 35: 305-311.
Kennedy GG, Gould F, DePonti OMB, Stinner RE. 1987. Ecological, agricultural, genetic and commercial considerations in the deployment of insect resistant germplasm. Environmental Entomology 16: 327–338.
Lal OP. 1985. Field resistance of some cultivar against the fruit worm, Heliothis armigera (Hb.) in Tropoli. Bulletin of Entomology 26(1): 96-97.
Li Y, Hill CB, Hartman GL. 2004. Effect of three resistant soybean genotypes on the fecundity, mortality and maturation of soybean aphid (Homoptera, Aphididae). Journal of Economic Entomology 97: 1106-1111.
Mabbett T, Dareepat P, Nachapong M. 1980. Behaviour studies on Heliothis armigera and their application to scouting techniques for cotton in Thailand. Tropical Pest Management 26: 268-273.
Malekzadeh M, Javadzadeh M. 2002. Evaluation of the impact of toxins andbiologic materials of tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.)Proceedings of the 15th Iranian Plant Protection Congress, (Vol. 1-Pests), 7-11 September 2002, Razi University of Kermanshah, Kermanshah, Iran. P. 125.
Maelzer D, Zalucki M. 1999. Analysis of long-term light-trap data for Helicoverpa spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Australia: the effect of climate and crop host plants. Bulletin of Entomological Research 89: 455-463.
Manjanuth TM, Bhatnagar VS, Pawar CS, Sithanantham S. 1989. Economic importance of Heliothis spp. in India and an assessment of their natural enemies and host plants. Proceedings of the Workshop on Biological Control of Heliothis: Increasing the Effectiveness of Natural Enemies. November 1985, New Delhi, India, pp. 196-228.
Mazaheri Tehrani M, Mortazavi A, Ziaalhagh HR, Ghandi A. 2007. Processing tomatoes. Vol 1. Marz Danesh Publishing. 240 pp. [In Persian]
Nathawut T. 1987. Oviposition preference, larval feeding preference and larval food quality of Heliothis armigera. Ph.D. Thesis on Agricultural Entomology, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Price PW. 1994. Phylogenetic constraints, adaptive syndromes, and emergent properties: from individuals to population dynamics. Researches on Population Ecology 36: 3-14.
Reed W, Pawar C. 1982. Heliothis: a global problem. InReed W., Kumble V. (eds.), International Workshop on Heliothis Management. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 15-20 November, 1981. ICRISAT, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India, pp. 9-14.
SAS Institute. 2002. Statistical Analyses Software. User’s Manual, version 9.01. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
Sehgal VK, Ujagir R. 1990. Effect of synthetic pyrethroids, neem extracts and other insecticides for the control of pod damage by Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on chickpea and pod damage-yield relationship at Pantnagar in northern India. Crop Protection 9: 29-32.
Selvanarayana V, Narayanasamy P. 2002. Antixenosis resistance in tomato to the fruit borer Helicoverpa armigera. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 24(3): 201-206.
Shanower TG, Romeis J. 1999. Insect pests of pigeon pea and their management. Annual Review of Entomology 44: 77-96.
Sharma HC. 2001. Cotton bollworm/legume pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera): Biology and Management. Crop Protection Compendium, CAB International, Wallingford. 70 pp.
Sivaprakasam N. 1996. Influence of trichomes on resistance to fruit borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Madras Agricultural Journal 83:474-475.
Smith CM. 1989. Plant Resistance to Insects, A fundamental Approach. Wiley-Interscience.
Twine P. 1989. Distribution and economic importance of Heliothis (Lep.: Noctuidae) and their natural enemies and host plants in Australia, pp. 177-184. inE. King, R. Jackson [eds.], Workshop on Biological Control of Heliothis: Increasing the Effectiveness of Natural Enemies, November 1985, New Delhi. Far Eastern Regional Research Office, US Department of Agriculture, India.
Usman A, Alikhan I. 2012. Oviposisional response of tomato fruit worm Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) to different tomato genotypes under agroecological conditions of Pkhtunkhwa-Pakistan. Sathad journal of Agriculture 28(2): 277-281.
Wilson AGL. 1982. Past and future Heliothis management in Australia., pp. 343-354 inW Reed, V Kumble [eds.], International Workshop on Heliothis Management. 15-20 November 1981. ICRISAT, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.