4.5 Article

Nutritional performance of the tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera, on different tomato cultivars

Journal

JOURNAL OF INSECT SCIENCE
Volume 14, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jis/14.1.102

Keywords

nutritional indices; Noctuidae; food consumption; tomato

Categories

Funding

  1. University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, (Ardabil, Iran)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The development and cultivation of tomato cultivars that are resistant to the tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), are very limited in Iran and other parts of the world because of the lack of information about resistant tomato cultivars to minimize the use of insecticides. Therefore, the present study was carried out to identify alternative methods to chemical control. Nutritional performance of the larval stages (fourth, fifth, and sixth instars) of H. armigera on fruit of eight tomato cultivars, including SUN 6108 f1, Rio grande UG, Korral, Super strain B, CH falat, Hed rio grande, Cal.JN3, and Super crystal, was studied under laboratory conditions. Fourth instars reared on CH falat and SUN 6108 f1 respectively showed the highest and lowest values of approximate digestibility. The highest values of efficiency of conversion of ingested food and efficiency of conversion of digested food of fifth instars were on Super strain B. The relative consumption rate and relative growth rate values of the sixth instars were the highest on Korral. The highest and lowest values of consumption index of sixth instars were on Super strain B and Hed rio grande, respectively. The efficiency of conversion of ingested food and efficiency of conversion of digested food values of whole larval instars were the highest on Hed rio grande and lowest on Rio grande UG. The results of nutritional indices indicated that Rio grande UG is an unsuitable host for H. armigera.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available