ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Study of host preference and the comparison of some biological characteristcs of Bemisia tabasi (Genn) on tomato varieties
1
Department of Entomology, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University 1477893855 Tehran, Iran
2
Division of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, Vali-e-Asr University, Rafsanjan, P.O. Box 518, Iran
3
Deptartmentof Life Sciences Engineering, Faculty of New Sciences and Technologies University of Tehran, 143951374 Tehran, Iran
Submission date: 2012-09-16
Acceptance date: 2013-03-22
Corresponding author
Masoomeh Samareh Fekri
Department of Entomology, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University 1477893855 Tehran, Iran
Department of Entomology, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University 1477893855 Tehran, Iran
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2013;53(2):137-142
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
The resistance of 8 tomato varieties to cotton white fly, Bemisia tabaci (Genn)(Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae), was evaluated in four greenhouse experiments. In the first experiment, we evaluated the attractiveness and preference for oviposition in a free-choice test (randomized blocks, 8 treatments, and 5 replications). In the other experiments, we evaluated the no-choice preference for oviposition (randomized blocks, 4 treatments, and 4 replications). The whitefly egg-adult cycle was monitored using a statistical design in randomized blocks with four replications. The percentage mortality of immature stages was also determined (randomized blocks with four replications). In the free-choice test, the tomato variety Rio Grande was the most attractive to adults, while the variety Cheffalat had the lowest number of adults. Also in this assay, the variety CAL-JN3 presented the lowest number of eggs, while the variety Ergon presented the highest number of eggs. In the no-choice test, the varieties Chef-falat and CAL-JN3 remained resistant. Consequently, for these two varieties non-preference is the oviposition resistance mechanism. The egg-adult cycle varied from 26.02 days (Ergon) to 26.66 days (CAL-JN3). The total mortality varied from 20.52 (Ergon) to 33.97 (CAL-JN3). Considering all the characteristics, the variety CAL-JN3 was the most resistant to
B. tabaci among all the tomato varieties studied, while variety Ergon was susceptible.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
REFERENCES (48)
1.
Baldin E.L.L., Vendramim J.D., Lourencao A.L. 2007. Interaction between resistant tomato genotypes and plant extracts on Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) biotype B. Sci. Agric. 64 (5): 476–481.
2.
Baldin E.L.L., Beneduzzi R.A. 2010. Characterization of antibiosis and antixenosis to the whitefly silver leaf Bemisia tabaci B biotype (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in several squash varieties. J. Pest. Sci. 83 (3): 223–229.
3.
Bedford I.D., Briddon R.W., Brown J.K., Rosell R.C., Markham P.G. 1994. Gemini virus transmission and biological characterization of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) biotypes from different geographic regions. Ann. Appl. Biol. 125 (2): 311–325.
4.
Bellows J., Perring T.M., Gill R.G., Headrick D.H. 1994. Description of Bemisia. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 87 (2): 195–206.
5.
Bethke J.A., Henneberry J.J. 1984. Bemisia tabaci: effect of cotton leaf pubescence on abundance. Southwest. Entomol. 9 (1): 91–94.
6.
Bethke J.A., Paine T.D., Nuessly G.S. 1991. Comparative biology, morphometrics and development of two populations of Bemisia tabaci (Hom.: Aleyrodidae) on cotton and poinsettia. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 84 (4): 407–411.
7.
Bogorni P.C., Vendramim J.D. 2005. Efeitosubletal de extratosaquosos de Trichilia spp. sobre 0 desenvolvimento de spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) emmilho. Neotrop. Entomol. 34 (2): 311–317.
8.
Butler G.D., Rimon D., Henneberry T.J. 1988. Bemisia tabaci: populations on different cotton varieties and cotton stickiness in Israel. Crop. Prot. 7 (1): 43–47.
9.
Byrne D.N., Houk M.A. 1990. Morphometric identification of wing polymorphism in Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 83 (3): 487–493.
10.
Byrne D.N., Draeger E.D.A. 1989. Effect of plant maturity on oviposition and nymphal mortality of Bemisia tabaci. Environ. Entomol. 18 (3): 429–432.
11.
Coudriet D.L., Prabhaker N., Kishaba A.N., Meyerdirk D.E. 1985. Variation in developmental rate on different hosts and overwintering of the sweet potato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Environ. Entomol. 14 (4): 516–519.
12.
Cunha U.S., Vendramim J.D., Rocha W.C., Vietra P.C. 2005. Potencial de Trichida pallid Swartz (Meliaceae) comofonte de substacias com atividadeinsecticidasobre a traca do tomaterio, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Neotrop. Entomol. 34 (4): 667–673.
13.
Dickson R.C., Johnson M.M.D., Laird E.F. 1956. Leaf crumples a virus disease of cotton. Phytopathology 44 (4): 479–480.
14.
Duffey S.S. 1986. Plant glandular trichoms: their partial role in defense against insects. p. 151–172 In: “Insects and The Plant Surface” (B.E Juniper, T.R.E Southwood, eds.). Edward Arnold, London, 360 pp.
15.
Duffus J.E. 1987. Whitefly transmission of plant viruses. p. 73–91. In: “Current Topics in Vector Research” (K.H. Harris, ed.). Springer Verlag, New York 4: 73–91.
16.
Fancelli M., Vendramim J.D., Lourençao A.L., Dias C.T.S. 2003. Attractiveness and oviposition preference of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) biotype B in tomato genotypes. Neotrop. Entomol. 32 (2): 319–328.
17.
Fancelli M., Vendramim J.D. 2002. Development of Bemisia tabaci (genn) Biotype B on Lycopersicon spp. Genotype. Sci. Agric. 59 (4): 665–669.
18.
Fekrat L., Shishebor P. 2007. Some biological features of cotton whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on various host plants. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 10 (18): 3180–3184.
19.
Gerling D. 1990. Whiteflies: Their Bionomics, Pest Status and Management. Wimborne, UK, Intercept, 348 pp.
20.
Greathead A.H. 1986. Bemisia tabaci a literature survey on the cotton whitefly with an annotated bibliography. p. 17–25. In: “Host Plants” (M.J.W. Cock, ed.). CAB International Institute of Biological Control, Ascot, UK, 121 pp.
21.
Hassell M.P., Southwood T.R. 1978. Foraging strategies of insects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 9 (1): 75–98.
22.
Jounior B.A., Toscano L.C., Santos T. 2003. Non-preference to Bemisia tabaci biotype B oviposition in cotton cultivar. p. 17–20. In: Proc. third international Bemisia workshop. Barcellona, 261 pp.
23.
Liedl B.E., Lawsonn D.M., White K.K., Shpirp J.A., Cohen D.E., Carson W.G., Trumble J.T., Mutschler M.A. 1995. Acylsugars of wild tomato Lycopersicon pennellii alters settling and reduces oviposition of Bemisiaargentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 88 (3): 742–748.
24.
Martin J.H. 1987. An identification guide to common whitefly pest species of the world (Homoptera, Aleyrodidae). Trop. Pest. Manage. 33 (4): 298–322.
25.
Mohanty AI., Basu A.N. 1986. Effect of host plants and seasonal factors on intraspecific variations in pupal morphology of whitefly vector, Bemisia tabaci (Genn). J. Entomol. Res. 10 (1): 19–26.
26.
Mound L.A. 1965a. Effects of leaf hair on cotton whitefly population in the Sudan Gezira. Emp. Cott. Grow. Rev. 42 (1): 33–40.
27.
Mound L.A. 1965b. An introduction to the Aleyrodidae of western Africa (Homoptera). Bull. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist. 17 (1): 115–160.
28.
Muigai S.G., Schuster D.J., Snyder J.C., Scott, J.W., Bassett M.J., Mc Auslane H.J. 2002. Mechanisms of resistance in Lycopersicon gerplasm to the whitefly Bemisia argentifolii. Phytoparasitica 30 (4): 347–360.
29.
Ohnesorge B., Sharar N., Allawi T. 1980.Population studies on the tobacco whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) during the winter season: I. Spatial distribution on some host plants. Z. Angew. Entomol. 90 (1–5): 226–232.
30.
Oriani M.A.G., Lara F.M. 2000. Oviposition preference of Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) biotype B (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) for bean genotypes containing arcelin in the seeds. An. Soc. Entomol. Bras. 29 (3): 565–572.
31.
Oriani M.A.G., Vendramim J.D., Vasconcelos C.J. 2011. Biology of Bemisia tabaci (Genn) B biotype (Hemiptera, Aleyrodidae) on tomato genotypes. Sci. Agric. 68 (1): 37–41.
32.
Panda N., Khush G.S. 1995. Host Plant Resistance to Insects. Wallingford, CAB International, UK, 431 pp.
33.
Powell D.A., Bellows T.S. 1992a. Preimaginal development and survival of Bemisia tabaci on cotton and cucumber. Environ. Entomol. 21 (2): 359–363.
34.
Powell D.A., Bellows T.S. 1992b. Adult longevity, fertility and population growth rates for Bemisia tabaci on two host plant species. J. Appl. Entomol. 113 (1–5): 68–78.
35.
Samih M.A. 2005. Comparative study on biological parameters of Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) collected on four host plants from Varamin-IRAN. Commun. Agric. Appl. Biol. Sci. 70 (4): 663–670.
36.
Samih M.A., Izadi H. 2006. Age specific reproduction parameters of cotton whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) and silver leaf whitefly (B. argentifolii) on cotton and rapeseed. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 8 (3): 302–305.
37.
Samih M.A., Izadi H., Mahdian K. 2006. Comparative study of the five biological parameters of cotton whitefly Bemisia tabaci and silver leaf whitefly B. argentifolii reared on cotton under laboratory condition. Commun. Agric. Appl. Biol. Sci. 2 (2): 613–620.
38.
Samih M.A., Jalali-Javaran M., Kamali K., Talebi A.A. 2007. Detection of polymorphism by RAPD-PCR in local populations of sweet potato whitefly in Iran. Agric. Sci. 17 (1): 151–165.
39.
Schuster D.J., Stansly P.A., Polston J.E. 1996. Expressions of plant damage of Bemisia. p. 153–165. In: “Bemisia 1995: Taxonomy, Biology, Damage, Control and Management” (D. Gerling, R.T. Mayer, eds.). Intercept Ltd., Andover, Hants, UK, 684 pp.
40.
Setiawati W., Adiarto B.K., Gunaeni N. 2009. Preference and infestation pattern of Bemisia tabaci (Genn) on some tomato varities and its effect on gemini virus infestation. Indonesian. J. Agric. Sci. 2 (1): 57–64.
41.
Sharaf N.S., Al-Musa A.M., Batta Y. 1985. Effect of different host plants on the population development of the sweet potato whitefly (Bemisia tabaci Genn.; Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Dirasat 12 (2): 89–100.
42.
Smith C.M., Khan Z.R., Pathak M.D. 1994. Techniques for evaluating insect resistance in crop plants. p. 17–114. In: “Evaluation of Plants for Insect Resistance” (C.M Smith, Z.R. Khan, M.D, Pathak, eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 320 pp.
43.
Silva M.S., André L., Lourenção A.L., Alberto J., Souza-Dias C., Miranda Filho H.S., Ramos V.J., Schammass E.A. 2008. Resistance of potato genotypes (Solanum spp.) to Bemisia tabaci biotype B. Hortic Bars. 26 (2): 221–226.
44.
Snyder J.C., Simmons A.M., Tracker R.R. 1998. Attractancy and oviposition response of type IV trichome density on leaves of Lycopersicon hirsutum grown in three day-lenght regimes. J. Entomol. Sci. 33 (3): 270–281.
45.
Toscana L.C., Boica A.L., Maruyama W.I. 2002. Nonpreference of whitefly for oviposition in tomato genotypes. Sci. Agric. 59 (4): 677–681.
46.
Wagner T.L. 1995. Temperature-dependent development, mortality, and adult size of sweetpotato whitefly biotype B (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Environ. Entomol. 24 (5): 1179–1188.
47.
Willmer P. 1986. Microclimatic effects on insects at the plant surface. p. 65–80. In: “Insects and the Plant Surface” (B. Juniper, R. Southwood, eds.). Edward Arnold, London, 360 pp.
48.
Yasarakinci N., Hincal P. 1996. The population growth of pests and their beneficials in cucumber plastic tunnels in the Izmir region on Turkey. http: www. geocities. com/ nyasarakinci/ nil/cucum.htm. Accessed on: November 3–5, 1997.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1899-007X |
| ISSN: | 1427-4345 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
