Subscribe Now Subscribe Today
Research Article
 

Screening of Cotton Strains for Resistance to Anthonomus grandis grandis (Boheman) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)



Muhammad Aslam R. B. Chalfant and G. A. Herzog
 
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit Linkedin StumbleUpon E-mail
ABSTRACT

In a cotton-strain-screening field experiment conducted at the University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA, 31794, USA, the Anthonomus grandis grandis (Boheman) showed low preference to PD 0786 and intermediate to TAMCOT lines, STHG 3-1, DES 920, STHG 4-4, MISCOT TB-27-7, GATIR 84-662 LAHG 810063 and TIFCOT 56 when compared with Stoneville 213, a susceptible standard cultivar.

Services
Related Articles in ASCI
Similar Articles in this Journal
Search in Google Scholar
View Citation
Report Citation

 
  How to cite this article:

Muhammad Aslam R. B. Chalfant and G. A. Herzog, 1998. Screening of Cotton Strains for Resistance to Anthonomus grandis grandis (Boheman) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 1: 285-286.

DOI: 10.3923/pjbs.1998.285.286

URL: https://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=pjbs.1998.285.286

Introduction

Cotton is worlds most important textile fiber as well as oil seed crop (Khan and Aziz, 1998). It is attacked by a tremendous number of insect pests including Anthonomus grandis grandis Boheman the boll weevil (BWVL). It inflicts 51 percent yield losses to cotton if not controlled (Schwartz, 1983). Various techniques have been used to screen different cotton lines for resistence to this pest. The screening of an experimental strain is usually done by comparing the strain with a cultivar known to be ‘susceptible’ (Painter, 1951; Namken et al., 1983).

Field screenings have been used very successfully to assess plant resistence to BWVL by studying feeding and oviposition punctures on the cotton squares (Niles, 1980). Maxwell et al. (1969) indicated that frego bract character of cotton contributed a significant degree of non-preference for oviposition by BWVL. Clower et al. (1970) showed higher tendency of BWVL population in plots having normal cotton than plots having either frego bract or the medium red foliage characteristic (AK Djura). He further showed more suppression of BWVL populations when these two characters were combined. Jones et al. (1987), in field tests, studied BWVL preference and non-preference to selected cotton lines comparing with the standard cultivars’ Stoneville 213’ and/or ‘Deltapine 41’ and showed certain genotypes several times more attractive to BWVL than Deltapine 41.

The objective of these studies is to screen cotton strains for resistence of BWVL in the field using Stoneville 213, a commercial, susceptible check.

Materials and Methods

In a cotton strain-screening field experiment conducted at the University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Experiment Station Tifton, Georgia USA, twenty strains of cotton (including Stoneville 213 as a susceptible check) were planted on May 8 at the Experimental Farm in plots maintained under three levels (A, B, C) of past management. In level A, cypermethrin (CymbushR 3E), a pyrethroid and broad- spectrum insecticide was applied at a rate of 0.056 kg (ai) ha–1 twice weekly for fourteen times from July 6 through September 1. In level B, the insecticide was applied at the same rate at two week intervals for four times from July 14 through August 25, while in level C, no insecticide was applied. The three levels were kept separate from one another to avoid drift from pesticidal applications. The cotton lines were replicated three times in each level using randomized block designs. The plots consisted of two rows, 10.67 m, in length and 1.83 m, in width. Fertilizer (5-10-15) was applied at a rate of 42.01, 84.028, 126.04 kg of N, P, K ha–1, respectively. Also 33.61 kg of nitrogen ha–1 was side dressed four weeks after planting.

Also, during this year, due to an obligatory federal BWVL eradication program azinphosmethyl (GuthionR 2L), an organophosphate insecticide was applied using 0.28 kg (ai) ha–1, twice weekly from July 6 through November 12 for a total of 30 applications in all plots.

The infestations BWVL were recorded on twenty five squares per plot, recording weekly the number punctured by BWVL oviposition and feeding from July 9 through September 3. The observations recorded are shown as percent squares punctured by BWVL oviposition and feeding in all the lines separately to relate the oviposition and feeding preferences by this insect.

The statistical analysis was done as three randomized block designs nested with the main plots using SAS (SAS Institute 1986). T Tests (LSD) as recommended by Benedict (1983) were applied to the means.

Based on the groupings of the T Tests, the resistence of the strains to BWVL was classified as high oviposition and feeding preferences when boll weevil showed significantly higher oviposition and feeding preferences on the cotton line than on Stoneville 213; equal, when oviposition and feeding preferences by BWVL on cotton lines were not significantly different (NDS) from that on Stoneville 213; low, when BWVL showed the minimum oviposition and feeding preferences and intermediate when nature of preferences was in between equal and low.

Results and Discussion

Table 1 reveals that BWVL had a low oviposition preferences to PD-0786 and intermediate preference to TAMCOT lines, STHG 3-1, DES 920, STHG 4-4, MISCOT TB-27-7, GATIR 84-662, LAHG 810063, TIFCOT 56, STHG 6-1, LAHG 820060 and MISCOT 7913-51 when compared with Stoneville 213. It showed a low feeding preference to PD-0786, an intermediate feeding preference on TAMCOT lines, STHG 3-1, DES 920, STHG 4-4, MISCOT TB-27-7, GATIR 84-662, LAHG 810063, TIFCOT 56, ARS-TX-HIGOS1, ARS-TX-HIGOS2 and LAHG 810060 while on all other lines the feeding preferences by BWVL were not significantly different from Stoneville 213. PD-0786 was a frego bract cotton strain which is not preferred by BWVL due to the fact that it does not provide hiding place to the weevil to oviposition and feed on naked cotton squares due to the shape of bracts forwarding downwards.

Table 1:
Percent squares damaged by boll weevil oviposition and feeding punctures in cotton strains, Tifton GA, USA.
Means within columns followed by the same letters are not different based on T Test (LSD), p = 0.05

Maxwell et al. (1969), also indicated that frego bract character of cotton contributed a significant degree of non-preference for oviposition by the BWVL. Clower et al. (1970) had also shown lower BWVL populations on frego bract cotton than on the normal cotton. Jones et al. (1987) had also shown BWVL preferences and non-preferences to selected cottons when compared with Stoneville 213 and/or Deltapine. Thus our findings support the conclusions of above mentioned researchers. The percentage of squares punctured by the BWVL feeding and oviposition and feeding were significantly correlated (Table 2).

Table 2:
Correlation between different criteria used to screen cotton strains for resistance to boll weevil, Tifton, GA, USA.
Correlation coefficients with** are significant at significance level p<0.01, N = 20.
REFERENCES
1:  Benedict, J.H., 1983. Methods of evaluating cotton for resistance to the boll weevil Anthomonus grandis, Gossypium spp., comparisons, cotton lines. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 280, Vol. 61, pp: 19-26.

2:  Clower, D.F., J.E. Jones, K.B. Benkwith and L.W. Sloane, 1970. Non-preference: A new approach to boll weevil control. Louisiana Agric., 13: 10-11.

3:  Jones, J.E., J.I. Dickson and J.P. Beasley, 1987. Preference and nonpreference of boll weevils to selected cotton. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Production Research Conferences, January 4-8, 1987, Memphis -.

4:  Khan, I.A. and K. Aziz, 1998. The wealth of cotton seed. The Nation X (114): ll.

5:  Maxwell, F.G., J.N. Jenkins, W.L. Parrott and W.T. Buford, 1969. Factors contributing to resistance and susceptibility of cotton and other hosts to the boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis. Entomol. Exp. Applic., 12: 801-810.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

6:  Namken, L.N., M.D. Heilman, J.N. Jenkins and P.A. Miller, 1983. Plant Resistance and Modified Cotton Culture. In: Cotton Insect Management with Special Reference to the Boll Weevil, Ridgway, R.L., R.P. Lloyd and W.H. Cross (Eds.). U.S. Department of Agriculture, USA., pp: 73-97.

7:  Niles, G.A., 1980. Breeding Cotton for Resistance to Insect Pests. In: Breeding Plants Resistant To Insects, Maxwell, F.G. and P.R. Jennings (Eds.). Wiley, New York, ISBN: 9780471032687, pp: 337-369.

8:  Painter, R.H., 1951. Insect Resistance in Crop Plants. MacMillan, New York, USA., Pages: 520.

9:  SAS., 1986. SAS Users Guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC., USA.

10:  Schwartz, P.H., 1983. Losses in Yield of Cotton Due to Insects. In: Cotton Insect Management with Special Reference to the Boll Weevil, Ridgway, R.L., E.P. Lloyd and W.H. Cross (Eds.). U.S. Department of Agriculture, USA., pp: 329-358.

©  2021 Science Alert. All Rights Reserved