Evaluation of Population Density and Damage of the sugar beet weevil, Lixus incanescens (Col.: Curculionidae) on six sugar beet cultivars

پژوهش های حفاظت گیاهان ایران

Article 11, Volume 28, Issue 4 - Serial Number 29, December 2015, Pages 517-524   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jpp.v28i4.21914

Authors

Seyed Ali Asghar Fathi^* ; Ali Akbar Abedi

University of Mohaghegh Ardabili

Abstract

The sugar beet weevil, Lixus incanescens Boh., is an important insect pest of sugar beet, Beta vulgaris L., in Razavi Khorasan Province. In this research, population densities of the sugar beet weevil eggs and larvae were evaluated on plants of six sugar beet cultivars including Ardabili, Aras, Persia, Flores, Laetitia and Rosire in an experimental field in 2011 and 2012. Also, the percentage of larval damage on petioles, the percentage of weight loss of tuber and the percentage of reduction in sugar content of the tuber were studied in these cultivars infected by five larvae under field condition. The lowest and the highest densities of eggs and larvae were observed on Persia and Ardabili cultivars, respectively in both years. Also, the percentage of larval damage on petioles was significantly lower in Persia and Laetitia than the other cultivars. In addition, the percentage of weight loss of tuber and the percentage of reduction in sugar content of tuber were lowest in infected plants of Persia. Therefore, it can be concluded that the sugar beet weevil damage was both quantitatively and qualitatively least in Persia among the examined cultivars and so this cultivar has the potential for being used in an integrated pest management program of L. incanescens in sugar beet fields.

Keywords

Weevil; Sugar beet cultivars; population density; Quantitative and qualitative damage

References

1- امینی م. 1367. علل کاهش عیار قند در چغندرقند. انتشارات ترویج کشاورزی. تهران. 142 صفحه.

2- خیری م. 1370. آفات مهم چغندرقند و راه های مبارزه با آن‌ها. وزارت کشاورزی، سازمان ترویج کشاورزی، تهران. صفحات 77 تا 84.

3- دواچی ع. 1343. سرخرطومی های چغندرقند ایران و طرز مبارزه با آن‌ها. وزارت کشاورزی، سازمان ترویج کشاورزی، تهران. صفحات 37 تا 43.

4- طالبی جهرمی خ. 1385. سم شناسی آفت کش ها؛ حشره کش ها، کنه کش ها و موش کش ها. انتشارات دانشگاه تهران. صفحات 26 تا 30.

5- کوچکی ع. و سلطانی الف 1382. زراعت چغندرقند. انتشارات جهاد دانشگاهی مشهد. 200 صفحه.

6- یزدی صمدی ب.، رضائی ع. و ولی زاده م. 1387. طرحهای آماری در پژوهش‌های کشاورزی. انتشارات دانشگاه تهران. 764 صفحه.

7- Aleeva M.N. 1953. Data on the biology of weevils Coleoptera, Curculionidae injurious to sugar beet in Kazakhstan. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 33: 103- 108.

8- Arbabtafti R., Sheikhi-Garjan A., and Hosseini-Gharalari A. 2012. Crop loss assessment of Lixus incanescens Boh. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on sugar beet, Beta vulgaris L. Jordan Journal of Biological Sciences, 5: 197-202.

9- Brown R.A. 1981. Gappiness, sugar beet yield loss and soil- inhabiting pests. Proceedings of the 11th British Crop Protection Conference – Pests and Diseases. pp. 803- 810.

10- Chiarappa L. 1981. Crop loss assessment methods. Commonwealth Agricultural Bordeaux for FAO. 123 pp.

11- Cook, D.A. 1999. The sugar beet crop: science into practice. Chapman & Hall, the University of Wisconsin - Madison. 675 pp.

12- De Groote H., Bett C., Ouma Okuro J., Odendo M., Mose L., and Wekesa E. 2002. Direct estimation of maize crop losses due to stem borers in Kenya, preliminary results from 2000 and 2001. Proceedings of Seventh Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Maize Conference. Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 401-406.

13- Dunning R.A., and Winder G.H. 1972. Some effects, especially on yield, of artificially defoliating sugar beet. Annals of Applied Biology, 70: 89- 98.

14- Gold C.S., Ragama P.E., Coe R., and Rukazambuga N.D.T.M. 2004. Selection of assessment methods for evaluating banana weevil damage on high land cooking banana. Uganda Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 9: 247- 280.

15- Hsu J.C., Horng S.B., and Wu W.J. 2001. Spatial distribution and sampling of Aulacaspis yabunikkei (Homoptera: Diaspidae) in Camphor trees. Plant Protection, 43: 69-81.

16- Jaggard K.W., Clark C.J.A., and Draycott A.P. 1999. The weight and processing quality of components of the storage roots of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 79: 1389-1398.

17- Jones F.G.W., Dunning R.A., and Humphries K.P. 1955. The effects of defoliation and loss of stand upon yield of sugar beet. Annals of Applied Biology, 43: 63- 70.

18- Manole T. 1990. Lixus incanescens Boh. (Col.: Curculionidae): a new pest of sugar beet crops in Romania. Academia de Stiinte Agricole si Silvice, 23: 155- 165.

19- Ocete R., Ocete M. E., Perez-Izquierdo M.A., and Rubio I.M. 1994. Approximation to the phenology of Lixus junci Boh. (Col.: Curculionidae) in La Rioja Alta: estimate of the damage it causes. Boletin de Sanidad Vegetal Plagas, 20: 611-616.

20- Price P.W. 1997. Insect Ecology (Third edition). John Willey and Sons, Inc. New York. 874 pp.

21- Prokopy R.J., and Owens E.D. 1983. Visual detection of plants by herbivorous insect. Annual Review of Entomology, 28: 337-364.

22- Rashidov M.A., and Khasanov A. 2003. Pests of sugar beet in Uzbekistan. ZashRast, 3: 29-33.

23- SAS Institute 1999. SAS/Stat users guide. SAS Institute, Cary.

24- Scott R.K., and Jaggard K.W. 1985. The effects of pests and diseases on growth and yield of sugar beet. Proceedings of the 48th Winter Congress of the International Institute for sugar Beet Research, pp. 153- 169.

25- Smith G.A., Martin S.S., and Ash K.A. 1977. Path coefficient analysis of sugar beet purity components. Crop Science, 17: 249-253.

26- Southwood T.R.E., and Henderson P.A. 2000. Ecological Methods. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. 592 pp.

27- Vander Poel P.W., Schiweck H., and Schwartz T. 1998. Sugar technology, beet and bane sugar manufacture. Published with Support of the Beet Sugar Development Foundation Denever, USA. 1120 pp.