c3518cb17d976b8

تحمل و آنتی‌بیوز چهار رقم گوجه‌فرنگی به لاروهای کرم میوۀ گوجه‌فرنگی Helicoverpa armigera در شرایط گل‌خانه‌ای

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانش‌آموختۀ کارشناسی ارشد حشره‌شناسی کشاورزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تبریز

2 دانشیار، دانشگاه تبریز، دانشکدۀ کشاورزی، گروه گیاه‌پزشکی

3 استادیار، مرکز تحقیقات کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان آذربایجان غربی، ارومیه

4 استادیار، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تبریز، دانشکدۀ کشاورزی، گروه گیاه‌پزشکی

5 دانشجوی دکتری گروه گیاه‌پزشکی دانشکدۀ کشاورزی، دانشگاه تبریز

چکیده

کرم میوۀ گوجه‌فرنگی (Lep.: Noctuidae) Helicoverpa armigera Hubner از مهم‌ترین آفات گوجه‌فرنگی در ایران و جهان است که به طیف گسترده‌ای از گیاهان زراعی و علف‌های هرز حمله می‌کند. تفاوت بین گونه‌ها یا ارقام گیاهی می‌تواند در مدیریت انبوهی این آفت به‌کار رود. در این بررسی، آنتی‌بیوز و تحمل چهار رقم سوپربتا، سوپرلونا، سوپرچیف و کی‌جی‌ان 3 در برابر کرم میوۀ گوجه‌فرنگی در کنار شاهد مطالعه شد. در تیمار آلوده در مرحلۀ میوه‌دهی 10 لارو سن سوم آفت هم‌زمان رهاسازی شد. در نهایت تعداد میوه و میوۀ آلوده، وزن هر میوه، عملکرد هر بوته، به عنوان شاخص‌های تحمل و تعداد شفیرۀ زنده مانده، مدت نشو و نما از سن سوم لاروی تا شفیره و وزن شفیره به عنوان شاخص‌های آنتی‌بیوز اندازه‌گیری شدند. در رقم سوپرچیف تا حدودی تحمل به لارو کرم میوه دیده شد، منتها به دلیل عملکرد پایین، این رقم در نبود آفت قابل توصیه نیست. آلودگی بر وزن میوه‌ها و عملکرد بوته‌ها اثر گذاشت. در میان ارقام، سوپرلونا و سوپربتا بیشترین کاهش وزن را داشتند و رقم کم‌تحمل شناخته شدند. بااین‌حال، حتی در حضور آفت بیشترین عملکرد را داشتند. آنتی‌بیوز در بین ارقام دیده نشد. در مجموع، برتری قاطعی بین چهار رقم تحت بررسی از نظر مقاومت و تحمل در برابر آفت دیده نشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Tolerance and antibiosis of four tomato varieties to fruit worm Helicoverpa armigera in greenhouse

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mehrnaz Tankhahi 1
  • Shahzad Iranipour 2
  • Esmaeil Alizadeh 3
  • Manije Jamshidi 4
  • Nahid Vaez 5
1 Graduated from the master of Agricultural Entomology, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch
2 University of Tabriz, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Plant Protection The responsible
3 Azerbaijan-e-Gharbi Research Center of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Urmia
4 Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Plant Protection
5 Ph.D. student, University of Tabriz, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Plant Protection
چکیده [English]

Tomato fruit worm is one of the most important pests of tomato in Iran which attacks a wide variety of crops and weeds.Differences between species or varieties can use in management of this pest. In this study, antibiosis and tolerance of four varieties "Super Beta", "Super Luna", "Super Chief" and "KJN3" were studied against the pest. An experiment was conducted with a couple of plants of each variety allocated as random to "control" and "pest released treatment". In recent treatment, 10 third instar larvae were released in fruiting stage. Total number of fruits and injured fruits, mean weight of a fruit and bunch yield were measured as tolerance criteria, while number of live pupae, development time of larvae and weight of pupae were measured as antibiosis indices. A relative tolerance was observed in Super Chief, but due to low yield in damage absence, it is not recommendable. Fruit weight as well as yield was impacted by infection. Super Luna and Super Beta loosed more weight and acknowledged as relatively susceptible varieties. Yet, they displayed most yields in presence of the pest. Consequently, there was no considerable difference among the varieties in terms of resistance against the pest.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Plant resistance
  • Interaction
  • Pest management

مراجع

Adkisson, P. L. & Dyck, V. A. (1980) Resistant varieties in pest management system, In. P. G. Maxwell & P. R. Jenning (Eds.), Breeding Plants Resistant to Insects. (pp 233-253) John 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 Farsi).
Anonymous. (2001) Agricultural Statistics, Agricultural and Horticultural Crops in 1999-2000. Vol. 1 Publication No. 83/06. Planning and Economic Affairs, Office of Statistics and Information Technology, Ministry of Agriculture. 137 pp. (In Farsi).
Banerjee, M. K. & 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, J. M. & Tingey, W. M. (1979) Aspects of the interaction between plant genotypes and biological control. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America, 25, 275-279.
Bilapate, G. G., Raodeo, A. K. & Pawar, V. M. (1984) Investigations on Heliothis armigera ( Hubner ) in Marathwada-VI. Life tables studies on cotton squares. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities, 9(3), 261-262.
Farid A. (1987) Some bio-ecological features of Heliothis armigera Hb. on tomatoes in Djiroft. Entomologie et Phytopathlogie Appliques, 54(1,2), 15-24. (in Farsi).
Ferry, R. L. & Guthbert, F. P. (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, Centerfor Plant Health Science and Technology (Internal Report), Raleigh, NC.
Kashyap, R. K. & Verma, A. N. (1984) Development and survival of fruit borer,Heliothis armigera (Hu.) on borer resistant and susceptible tomato genotypes. XVII International Congress of Entomology, 20-26 Aug., Hamburg., F. R. of Germany, p. 550.
Kennedy, G. G. (1984) 2-Tridecanone, tomatoes and Heliothis zea. Potential incompatibility of plant antibiosis with insecticidal control. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 35, 305-311.
Khanam U. K. S., Hossain, M., Ahmad, M. M. & Hossain, M. S. (2003) Varietal screening of tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) and associated tomato plant characters. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 6(3), 255-263.
Li, Y., Hill, C. B. & Hartman, G. L. (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 and biologic materials of tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) Proceedings of the 15th Iranian Plant Protection Congress, 7-11 Sept. 2002, Razi Kermanshah University, p. 125.
Maxwell, F. G. (1982) Current status of breeding for resistance to insects. Journal of Nematology, 14(1), 14-23.
Mazaheri Tehrani, M., Mortazavi, A., Ziaalhagh, H. R. & Ghandi, A. (2007) Processing Tomatoes. Marz Danesh Publishing. 240 pp. (In Farsi).
Metcalf, R. L. & Luckmann, W. H. (1982) Introduction to Insect Pest Management (2nd ed.). john Wiley & Sons NY.
Painter, R. H. 1951. Insect Resistance in Crop Plants. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, KS.
Reed, W. & Pawar, C. (1982) Heliothis: a global problem. In W. Reed & V. Kumble (Eds.), International Workshop on Heliothis Management. ( pp. 9-14).International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics., 15-20 Nov. ICRISAT, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Sajjad, M., Ashfaq, M., Suhail, A. & Akhtar, S. (2011) Screening of tomato genotypes for resistance to tomato fruit borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in Pakistan. Journal of Agriculture Science. 48(1), 59-62.
SAS Institute, (2002) Statistical Analyses Software. User’s Manual. Version 9.1. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
Sehgal, V. K. & 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. (2006) Factors of resistance in tomato accessions against the fruit worm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Crop Protection 25(10), 1075-1079.
Selvanarayana, V. & Narayanasamy, P. (2008) Assessment of tomato germplasm for resistance to fruit borer Helicoverpa (=Heliothis) armigera Hubner. Journal of Vegetable Science, 12(1), 71-79.
Sharma, H. C. (2001) Cotton bollworm/legume pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera): Biology and Management. Crop Protection Compendium, CAB International, Wallingford.
Twine, P. (1989) Distribution and economic importance of Heliothis (Lep.: Noctuidae) and of their natural enemies and host plants in Australia. InE. King & R. Jackson (Eds.), Workshop on Biological Control of Heliothis: Increasing the Effectiveness of Natural Enemies. (pp. 177-184). Nov. 1985, New Delhi. Far Eastern Regional Research Office, US Department of Agriculture, India.
Vaez, N. (2007) The consistency of wasp Trichogramma brassicae Bez. laboratory reared on host Helicoverpa armigera Hub. before release. M. Sc. Thesis on Agricultural Entomology. University of Mohaghegh Ardabili. 111 pp.
Van Emden, H. F. & Peakall, D. B. 1996. Beyond Silent Spring, Integrated Pest Management & Chemical Safety. Chapman & Hall.
Wilson, A. G. L. (1982) Past and future Heliothis management in Australia. InW. Reed & V. Kumble (Eds.), International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. (pp. 343-354). International Workshop on Heliothis Management. 15-20 Nov.1981. ICRISAT, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India.
دانش گیاهپزشکی ایران
دوره 45، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 2
پاییز و زمستان 1393
صفحه 279-288

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 23 مرداد 1393
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 26 آبان 1393
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 23 آذر 1393

اشتراک گذاری

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار