Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:37:56.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of cultural pest management techniques on the infestation of sweetpotato weevil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

N. S. Talekar
N. S. Talekar
Affiliation:
Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC), P.O. Box 42, Shanhua, Tainan 74199, Taiwan, ROC
Get access

Abstract

In a series of field experiments conducted since 1977, various cultural pest management techniques have been tested to reduce damage by the sweetpotato weevil, Cylas formicarius formicarius F. Planting rice after harvest of the weevil-infested crop does not reduce weevil damage in the ensuing sweetpotato crop if the source of weevil is present in the vicinity. Rice rotation initiated away from the weevil source, coupled with removal of the common wild-host Ipomoea sp., can reduce weevil infestation and maximize the effectiveness of carbofuran transplant dip treatment. In order to reduce the weevil source from the weevil-infested sweetpotato of the previous season, a 2-week flooding of the field soon after harvest practically eliminated the number of volunteer sweetpotato plants and the weevil. Covering the planted area with rice straw or plastic mulch reduced weevil infestation.

Résumé

Au cours d'une série d'expériences en champ conduites depuis 1977, nous avons testé plusieurs techniques culturales de lutte contre le charançon de la patate douce (Cylas formicarius). Une culture de riz après la récolte de patates douces infestées ne réduit pas le niveau d'infestation d'une nouvelle culture de patates douces si un réservoir de charançons existe dans le voisinage. Une rotation avec le riz, couplée avec l'élimination d'espèces végétales sauvages du genre Ipomoea quipeuvent servir d'hôte au charançon, peut réduire le niveau d'infestation ultérieur et maximiser l'efficacité du traitement par trempage dans le carbofuran avant le repiquage. Afin d'éliminer le risque d'infestation à partir des résidus d'une culture de patates douces infestée de la saison précédente, une inondation pendant 2 semaines du champ immédiatement après la récolte élimine pratiquement les plantes spontanées de patate douce ainsi que le charançon. Une couverture de la superficie plantée avec un paillis en plastique ou à paille de riz réduit également le niveau d'infestation.

Keywords

Sweetpotato weevilCylas formicarius formicariuscultural controlfloodingcrop rotationalternate hostsanitationintercroppingchemical controlmulching
Type
Symposium X: Sweetpotato Weevil
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 8 , Issue 4-5-6: Recent Advances in Research on Tropical Entomology , December 1987 , pp. 809 - 814
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1987

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

Ballou, H. A. (1915) The sweetpotato weevil, Agric. News 14, 138.Google Scholar
Chittenden, F. H. (1919) The Sweetpotato Weevil and Its Control. USD Farmers Bull. No. 1020.Google Scholar
Cockerham, K. L. (1940) Wild hosts of the sweetpotato weevil. Louisiana Agric. Exp. Sin Bull. 323, 38–39.Google Scholar
Cockerham, K. L. (1943) The host preference of sweetpotato weevil. J. econ. Ent. 36, 471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockerham, K. L., Deen, O. T., Christzian, M. B. and Newsom, L. D. (1954) The biology of the sweetpotato weevil. Louisiana Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. No. 483.Google Scholar
Eddy, C. O., Floyd, E. H. and Cockerham, K. L. (1942) Sweetpotato Weevil Control, p. 42. In Annual Report, Louisiana Agric Exp. Stn. Baton Rouge.Google Scholar
Edward, W. H. (1930). Insect pests of sweetpotato and cassava in Jamaica. Jamaica Ent. Bull. No. 5.Google Scholar
Franssen, C. J. H. (1934) Insect pests of sweetpotato crop in Java. Landbouw 10, 205–225. (In Dutch with English summary).Google Scholar
Holdaway, F. G. (1941) Insects of sweetpotato and their control. Hawaii Agric. Exp. Stn. Prog. Notes No. 26.Google Scholar
Jayaramaiah, M. (1975) Reaction of sweetpotato varieties in the damage of the weevil Cylas formicarius (Fab.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and the possibility of picking up infestation by weevil. Mysore J. Agric. Sci. 9, 418–421.Google Scholar
Reinhard, H. J. (1923) The sweetpotato weevil. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. No. 308.Google Scholar
Sherman, T. and Tamashiro, M. (1954) The sweetpotato weevils of Hawaii. Their biology and control. Hawaii Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. No. 23.Google Scholar
Subramaniam, T. R. (1959) Observations on the biology of Cylas formicarius at Coimbtore. Madras Agric. J. 46, 293–297.Google Scholar
Talekar, N. S. (1982) Effects of a sweetpotato weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) infestation on sweetpotato root yields. J. econ. Ent. 75, 1042–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talekar, N. S. (1983) Infestation of a sweetpotato weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) as influenced by pest management techniques. J. econ. Ent. 76, 342–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Texas Agricultural College (1954) Ways to control weevil (Cylas formicarius elegantulus) and diseases of sweet-potatoes. Texas Agric. Coll. Extension Leafl. No. 202.Google Scholar
Tucker, R. W. E. (1937) The control of scarabee (Euscepes batatas Wateh.) in Barbados. Barbados Department of Science and Agriculture, Agric. J. 6, 133–154.Google Scholar
Wedell, J. A. (1951) The sweetpotato weevil. Queensland Agric. J. 73, 25–26.Google Scholar