Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:45:54.153Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resistance of tomato varieties to the tomato russet mite, Aculops lycopersici (Massee) (Acarina: Eriophyidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

A. W. Kamau ,
J. M. Mueke  and
B. M. Khaemba
A. W. Kamau
Affiliation:
Egerton University, CMRT, P. O. Box 677, Njoro, Kenya
J. M. Mueke
Affiliation:
Kenyatta University, Department of Zoology, P. O. Box 43844, Nairobi, Kenya
B. M. Khaemba
Affiliation:
Moi University, P. O. Box 3900, Eldoret, Kenya
Get access

Abstract

There were significant differences in the level of susceptibility among the 12 varieties which were screened for resistance to A. lycopersici Pronounced tolerance to leaf damage was recorded on varieties Early Stone Improved and Beauty. Oxheart and Bonny Best both of which had comparatively lower mite densities were highly susceptible. Flower bud formation was not significantly affected by the mite damage. However, the number of dead flowers and flower buds on infested plants was significantly more than on protected ones.

Russetting of young fruits due to mite damage differed significantly among the varieties tested, and was positively correlated with moisture content of young fruits. The least and most affected varieties were Beauty and Red Cloud respectively. The percentage yield loss was highest on Hybrid Beefmaster and Oxheart and lowest on Roma and Money Maker.

Résumé

Des différences significatives existent quant au degré de sensibilité des variétés de tomate testées pour la resistance à A. lycopersici Une tolérance remarquable aux dégàts foiiaires a été observée sur les variétés “Early Stone Improved”, et “Beauty”. “Oxheart” et “Bonny” sur lesquelles on observe des densités faibles de mites sont aussi sensibles. La formation de boutons floraux n'est pas affectée de façon significative par les dégàts dus aux mites. Cependant, le nombre de fleurs et de boutons floraux dessechés sur les plantes infestées est significatlvement plus important que sur celles protegées. Le bruinissement des jeunes fruits dû aux dégâts des mites est significativement différent entre les variétés testées; et il existe une corrélation positive avec le taux d'humidité des jeunes fruits. Les variétés les plus et moins affectées sont “Beauty” et “Red Cloud” respectivement. Le pourcentage de perte en rendement est le plus élevé sur l'hybride “Beef Master” et “Oxheart” alors qu'il est le plus bas sur “Roma” et “Money Maker”.

Keywords

Resistancetomato russet mitetomato varietiesinfestationResistancecouleur brune due aux mitesvariétés de tomateinfestation
Type
Research Articles
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , June 1992 , pp. 351 - 356
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anonymous (1975) Annual Report, Ministry of Agriculture, Central Province, Kenya, p. 41.Google Scholar
Anonymous (1976) Annual Report, Ministry of Agriculture, Central Province, Kenya, p. 25.Google Scholar
Anonymous (1984) Horticultural Crops. Development Authority Export Statistics of figures of fresh fruits, vegetables and cut flowers by air from Kenya to various destinations.Google Scholar
Consenza, G. W. and Green, H. B. (1979) Behaviour of the tomato fruitworm, Heliothis zea (Boddie) on susceptible and resistant lines of processing tomatoes. Hon. Science 14, 171–173.Google Scholar
Emden, H. F. van (1966) Plant insect relationships and pest control. World Rev. Pest. Cont. 5, 115–123.Google Scholar
Gentile, A. G., Webb, E. R. and Stoner, A. K. (1969) Lycopersicon and Solanum spp. resistant to the carmine and the two spotted spider mite. Econ. Entomol. 61, 835–836.Google Scholar
Gilbert, J. C., Chinn, J. T. and Tanka, J. (1966) Spider mite tolerance in multiple disease resistant commercial type tomatoes. Proc. Am. Hort. Sci. 89, 559–562.Google Scholar
Horber, E. (1972) Plant resistance to insects. Agric. Sci. Rev. 10, 1–18.Google Scholar
Kamau, A. W. (1977) Effect of Eriophyid mite, Aculops lycopersici (Massee) (Acarina: Eriophyidae) on tomato in Kenya. The Entomol. News No. 5, p. 4.Google Scholar
Maxwell, F. G. (1972) Host plant resistance to insects nutritional and pest management relationships in insect and mite nutrition (Edited by Rodriguez J. G.), pp. 599–609. North-Holland Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Mwakha, E. (1976) Tomatoes. In Hort. Handbk. Vol. 2. The Editorial Committee of the National Horticultural Research Station, Thika, Kenya.Google Scholar
Painter, R.H. (1951) Insect Resistance in Crop Plants. The Macmillan Co., New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez, J. G., Knavel, D. E. and Aina, O. J. (1972) Studies of resistance of tomatoes to mites. J. Econ. Entomol. 65, 51–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, A. M. (1978) Breeding tomatoes for processing. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Tropical Tomato. 23–27 October 1978. AVRDC publication, pp. 201–213.Google Scholar