Bio-chemicals triggering host preference mechanism against tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner)

Jump To References Section

Authors

  • Department of Entomology, Dr. Y S Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni – 173230, Himachal Pradesh ,IN
  • Department of Entomology, Dr. Y S Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni – 173230, Himachal Pradesh ,IN
  • Department of Entomology, Dr. Y S Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni – 173230, Himachal Pradesh ,IN
  • Department of Entomology, Dr. Y S Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni – 173230, Himachal Pradesh ,IN

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18311/jbc/2019/22663

Keywords:

Correlation, Helicoverpa armigera, micronutrients, resistance, susceptible, tomato
Vegetable Entomology

Abstract

Mechanism of host plant resistance in tomato varieties was evaluated and compared against tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) attack in the Solan district known to be ‘Tomato bowl of Himachal Pradesh'. Eight varieties utilized for the experiment included three self pollinating indeterminate varieties developed by selection (Solan Lalima, Solan Vajar, Palam Pink) and four hybrids (Naveen 2000+, Heem Sohna, Red Gold, Rakshita Yash Tomato). In order to locate the sources for resistance in tomato foliage various macro and micro- nutrients were extracted from these varieties and chemical composition of tomato fruits viz., content of total phenols, titrable acidity, reducing sugars and total sugars were also estimated to compare for varying levels of resistance to Helicoverpa armigera. The content of phenol and sugars in tomato fruits was found to be negatively correlated with fruit infestation with values of correlation coefficient (r = - 0.895) and (r = - 0.650), respectively, indicating that susceptible varieties were low in phenols as well as in sugars. Nitrogen (r = 0.660), potassium (r = 0.679), magnesium (r = 0.698), iron (r = 0.547) and manganese (r = 0.546) content were found to be optimistically correlated with per cent fruit infestation while, phosphorous (r = - 0.857) and zinc (r = - 0.801) content did not favor the fruit borer attack. This observed resistance can be exploited for developing crop cultivars, which readily produce the inducible response upon mild infestation, and can act as important components of integrated pest management compatible with other approaches like biological control, cultural control as well as chemical control.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Downloads

Published

2020-04-06

How to Cite

Thakur, P., R. S., R., Challa, N., & Sharma, K. C. (2020). Bio-chemicals triggering host preference mechanism against tomato fruit borer, <i>Helicoverpa armigera</i> (Hübner). Journal of Biological Control, 33(4), 365–371. https://doi.org/10.18311/jbc/2019/22663

Issue

Section

Research Articles
Received 2018-11-08
Accepted 2019-01-04
Published 2020-04-06

 

References

Adam P. 1986. Mineral nutrition in tomato crop, scientific basis for improvement. pp. 284-334. In: Atherton JG, Rudich J. (Eds.). Mineral Nutrition. eBook, Springer Life Sciences.

Ashfaq M, Sajjad M, Ane MNU, Rana N. 2012. Morphological and chemical characteristics of tomato foliage as mechanisms of resistance to Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae. African J Biotech. 11: 7744-7750.

Banerjee MK, Kaloo L. 1989. Role of phenols in resistance to tomato leaf curl virus (Fusarium wilt) and tomato fruit borer in Lycopersicon. Curr Sci. 58: 575-576.

Chapman HD. 1964. Suggested foliar sampling and handling techniques for determining the nutrient status of some field horticultural and plantation crops. Indian J Hort. 21: 97-119.

Foss LK, Rieske LK. 2003. Species specific differences in oak foliage affect preference and performance of gypsy moth caterpillars. Entomol Exp Appl. 108: 87–93.https:// doi.org/10.1046/j.1570-7458.2003.00067.x

Gomez KA, Gomez AA. 1984. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Isman MB, Duffey SS. 1982. Phenolic compounds in foliage of commercial tomato cultivars as growth inhibitors to the fruit worm, Heliothis zea. J Am Soc Horti Sci. 107: 167-170.

Jackson ML. 1967. Soil Chemical Analysis. Asia Publising House, Bombay, India, 498 pp.

Jallow MFA, Matsumura M, Suzuki Y. 2001. Oviposition preference and reproductive performance of Japanese Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Appl Ent Zool. 36: 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1303/ aez.2001.419

Johnson MTJ, Smith SD, Rausher MD. 2009. Plant sex and the evolution of plant defenses against herbivores. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 106: 18079–18084. https:// doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0904695106 PMid:19617572 PMCid:PMC2775293

Kaloo 1986. Chemical composition in tomato Delhi Publising House, New Delhi, India, 238 pp.

Kashyap RK, Verma AN. 1987. Factors imparting resistance to fruit damage by Heliothis armigera (Hubner) in some tomato genotypes. Int J Trop Insect Sci. 8: 111-114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742758400007086

Lane JH, Eynon L. 1923. Determination of reducing sugars by means of Fehling's solution with methylene blue as internal indicator. J Soc Chem Ind Trans. 32-36.

Mahadevan A, Sridhar R. 1982. Methods of physiological plant pathology Sivakami Publications, Madras, India, 328 pp.

Minkenberg OPJM, Ottenheim JGW. 1990. Effect of leaf nitrogen content of tomato plant on preference and non preference of leaf mining fly. Oceologia 83: 291-298. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317551 PMid:28312998

Nicholas DJD. 1946. Detection of manganese deficiency in plants by tissue test using tetra-methyl-diaminophenyl methane. Nature 157: 696-698. https://doi.org/10.1038/157696b0 PMid:20984246

Ranganna S. 1997. Handbook of analysis and quality control for fruit and vegetable products Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi, India, 1112 pp. PMid:9437188

Sahu IK, Shaw SS, Gupta AK. 2005. Relative preference of tomato genotypes by fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera Hubner. Nat J Plant Imp. 6: 89-91.

Sankhyan S, Verma AK. 1997. Field screening of tomato germplasm for resistance against the fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae). Pest Manage Eco Zool. 5: 107.

Selvanarayan V, Narayanasamy P. 2006. Factors of resistance in tomato accessions against the fruit worm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Crop Prot. 25: 1075-1079. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2006.02.008

Sharma KC, Bhardwaj SC, Kumar S. 2008. Bio-chemical factors of resistance in tomato varieties against fruit borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Environ Ecol. 26: 1135- 1137.

Simmons AT, Gurr GM, McGrath D, Martin PM, Nicol HI. 2004. Entrapment of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on glandular trichomes of Lycopersicon species. Aust J Ento. 43: 196-200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-6055.2004.00414.x

Singh D, Narang DD. 1990. Control of tomato fruit borer Heliothis armigera (Hubner) with synthetic pyrethroids. Indian J Ent. 52: 534-540.

Thakur Priyanka, Rana RS, Sharma KC, Sharma N. 2018. Host preference of the fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on tomato varieties in mid hills of Himachal Pradesh. J Ent Zool Studies. 6: 1186-1189

Usman A, Khan IA. 2012. Ovipositional response of tomato fruit worm (Helicoverpa armigera) (Hubner) to different tomato genotypes under agroecological conditions of Pakistan. Sarhad J Agr. 28: 277-281.

Most read articles by the same author(s)