Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

EVALUATION OF ADVANCED SWEET POTATO GENOTYPES FOR RESISTANCE TO SOIL INSECT PESTS, 2012

EVALUATION OF ADVANCED SWEET POTATO GENOTYPES FOR RESISTANCE TO SOIL INSECT PESTS, 2012 Arthropod Management Tests 2013, Vol. 38 doi: 10.4182/amt.2013.M3 (M3) SWEET POTATO: Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam EVALUATION OF ADVANCED SWEET POTATO GENOTYPES FOR RESISTANCE TO SOIL INSECT PESTS, 2012 D. Michael Jackson USDA-ARS U. S. Vegetable Laboratory 2700 Savannah Highway Charleston, SC 29414 Phone: (843)-402-5308 FAX: 843-573-4715 Email: mike.jackson@ars.usda.gov Howard F. Harrison, Jr. Howard.Harrison@ars.usda.gov Spotted cucumber beetle (SCB): Diabrotica undecimpunctata howardi Barber Banded cucumber beetle (BCB): Diabrotica balteata LeConte Sweetpotato flea beetle (SPFB): Chaetocnema confinis Crotch Elongate flea beetle (EFB): Systena elongata (F.) Wireworms (WW): Conoderus spp. White grubs (WG): Phyllophaga spp. and Plectris aliena Chapin Sweetpotato weevil (SPW): Cylas formicarius (F.) The field experiment described herein was an evaluation of advanced sweet potato genotypes developed by USDA-ARS at the U. S. Vegetable Laboratory (USVL), Charleston, SC in 2012. A major objective of the sweet potato breeding program at the USVL is to produce advanced germplasm with resistance to soil insect pests. Cuttings of two insect-susceptible check cultivars (‘Beauregard’ and ‘SC1149 19’), three insect-resistant check cultivars (‘Charleston Scarlet’, ‘Regal’, and ‘Ruddy’), two commercial varieties (‘Covington’ and ‘Diane’), and 34 advanced genotypes from the USVL sweet potato breeding program were planted at the USVL on 5 June 2012. Four replications of these 41 entries were grown in single- row, 10-plant plots that were arranged in a randomized complete block experimental field design. Normal production practices were followed, except that no insecticides were applied. When rainfall was not adequate during the growing season, supplemental overhead irrigation was applied. Plots were harvested on 10 Oct. 2012 (127 days after planting). Individual roots were evaluated for damage from natural infestations of SPFB, WG larvae, SPW, and the WDS complex (Wireworm, Diabrotica, Systena). WDS severity index was determined using a rating scale where 1 = 1-5 holes or scars, 2 = 6-10 holes or scars, 4 = >10 holes or scars. SPFB, WG, and SPW data were the percentages of roots that were damaged by these insects. The percentages of uninjured roots (undamaged by any of the soil insect pests) also were determined for each entry. Data were subjected to ANOVA, and means were separated by Fisher’s protected least significant difference at the 5% probability level. ANOVA indicated that there were highly significant genotype effects for percentage of uninjured roots, WDS index, the percentage of roots injured by flea beetles, the percentage of roots injured by white grubs, and the percentage of roots injured by sweetpotato weevils (Table 1). No significant block (replication) effects were observed for any variable. Twenty genotypes had significantly less overall insect injury (i.e., higher percentage of undamaged roots), and 18 genotypes had significantly lower WDS indices than did the two susceptible checks. All but four genotypes had significantly less injury by flea beetles than did ‘SC1149-19’. Nineteen genotypes had significantly less grub damage, and 35 had significantly less weevil damage than did ‘SC1149-19’. 1 Arthropod Management Tests 2013, Vol. 38 doi: 10.4182/amt.2013.M3 Table 1. Sweet potato SPW-damaged Uninjured WDS SPFB-damaged WG-damaged genotype roots, % severity index roots, % roots, % roots, % Ruddy 95.0a 0.03q 1.8p 0.3cd 0.0h 07-135 84.4ab 0.12q 4.7n-p 0.8b-d 0.0h 07-182 81.7ab 0.14pq 2.1p 0.0d 3.9e-h Charleston Scarlet 80.9ab 0.13pq 8.3k-p 0.0d 0.0h 07-119 76.6a-c 0.15pq 11.0j-p 0.0d 1.2gh 07-117 71.6b-d 0.23n-q 10.4k-p 1.3b-d 2.1f-h 09-061 69.6b-e 0.23n-q 10.3k-p 0.9b-d 1.1gh 04-531NC 69.5b-e 0.25m-q 10.6k-p 0.0d 2.1f-h Regal 68.2b-f 0.34j-p 3.8op 0.0d 0.0h 08-779NC 67.4b-f 0.39m-q 7.9l-p 0.4cd 0.0h 07-073 66.2b-f 0.16o-q 19.6c-k 0.5cd 2.8e-h 09-050 60.4c-g 0.33j-p 11.7i-p 0.0d 4.2d-h 09-077 60.2c-g 0.30l-q 11.5i-p 0.7b-d 6.4d-h 09-083 59.0c-h 0.39h-o 9.3k-p 0.0d 4.3d-h 09-113 57.7c-i 0.37i-p 12.4h-p 0.7b-d 0.7h 09-072 57.6c-i 0.48f-n 9.0k-p 1.1b-d 2.3f-h 09-080 55.1d-i 0.32k-p 14.6g-o 0.9b-d 5.3d-h 09-134 54.1d-i 0.39h-o 8.7k-p 0.9b-d 8.5d-h 09-017 51.4e-j 0.45f-n 5.9m-p 0.0d 5.3d-h 09-091 49.9f-k 0.50e-m 8.6k-p 0.0d 7.0d-h 09-146 44.8g-l 0.44g-n 22.7c-i 0.0d 4.2d-h W-258 40.7h-m 0.64b-i 11.9i-p 1.0b-d 4.0e-h 09-046 38.9i-n 0.50e-m 17.6e-l 0.0d 6.3d-h Covington 38.8i-n 0.69b-g 7.4l-p 0.8b-d 7.3d-h 09-136 34.5j-o 0.59c-j 22.2c-j 0.5cd 7.9d-h 09-024 34.1j-o 0.47f-n 30.2a-c 0.9b-d 32.2a 09-069 32.9j-o 0.65b-h 6.0m-p 0.0d 7.0d-h Diane 32.7j-o 0.65b-h 9.0k-p 0.0d 7.2d-h 09-042 32.6j-o 0.78a-d 25.9c-g 2.7ab 7.9d-h 09-015 31.8k-o 0.62b-i 23.6c-h 0.0d 14.0b-d 09-041 30.7l-o 0.57c-k 18.1d-l 0.0d 12.5c-e 09-097 30.3l-o 0.56d-l 26.0c-f 0.0d 22.4a-c 09-129 29.5l-o 0.59c-k 15.2f-n 0.0d 28.0a Beauregard 29.0l-o 0.84a-c 14.8f-o 0.0d 5.3d-h 09-123 26.1l-o 0.71b-g 15.9e-n 0.8b-d 11.1d-g 09-212 25.3m-o 0.59c-k 40.6a 0.0d 9.3d-h 09-104 22.9m-o 0.87ab 17.1e-m 1.8b-d 11.7d-f 09-012 21.3no 0.77b-e 26.5c-e 2.2a-c 12.0d-f 09-130 20.3no 0.75b-e 29.1b-d 0.7b-d 26.4a SC1149-19 18.5o 0.72b-f 39.3ab 2.2a-c 23.6ab 09-052 17.7o 1.05a 29.0b-d 4.3a 6.4d-h Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (P =0.05, Fisher’s Least Significant Difference). Severity index: 1=1-5 scars, 2=6-10 scars, 4=>10 scars, averaged over all roots; maximum score = 4.0. Check cultivars resistant to the WDS complex. Susceptible check cultivars. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

EVALUATION OF ADVANCED SWEET POTATO GENOTYPES FOR RESISTANCE TO SOIL INSECT PESTS, 2012

Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/evaluation-of-advanced-sweet-potato-genotypes-for-resistance-to-soil-Bm4kUZOVkQ

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Published by Oxford University Press.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.4182/amt.2013.M3
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Arthropod Management Tests 2013, Vol. 38 doi: 10.4182/amt.2013.M3 (M3) SWEET POTATO: Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam EVALUATION OF ADVANCED SWEET POTATO GENOTYPES FOR RESISTANCE TO SOIL INSECT PESTS, 2012 D. Michael Jackson USDA-ARS U. S. Vegetable Laboratory 2700 Savannah Highway Charleston, SC 29414 Phone: (843)-402-5308 FAX: 843-573-4715 Email: mike.jackson@ars.usda.gov Howard F. Harrison, Jr. Howard.Harrison@ars.usda.gov Spotted cucumber beetle (SCB): Diabrotica undecimpunctata howardi Barber Banded cucumber beetle (BCB): Diabrotica balteata LeConte Sweetpotato flea beetle (SPFB): Chaetocnema confinis Crotch Elongate flea beetle (EFB): Systena elongata (F.) Wireworms (WW): Conoderus spp. White grubs (WG): Phyllophaga spp. and Plectris aliena Chapin Sweetpotato weevil (SPW): Cylas formicarius (F.) The field experiment described herein was an evaluation of advanced sweet potato genotypes developed by USDA-ARS at the U. S. Vegetable Laboratory (USVL), Charleston, SC in 2012. A major objective of the sweet potato breeding program at the USVL is to produce advanced germplasm with resistance to soil insect pests. Cuttings of two insect-susceptible check cultivars (‘Beauregard’ and ‘SC1149 19’), three insect-resistant check cultivars (‘Charleston Scarlet’, ‘Regal’, and ‘Ruddy’), two commercial varieties (‘Covington’ and ‘Diane’), and 34 advanced genotypes from the USVL sweet potato breeding program were planted at the USVL on 5 June 2012. Four replications of these 41 entries were grown in single- row, 10-plant plots that were arranged in a randomized complete block experimental field design. Normal production practices were followed, except that no insecticides were applied. When rainfall was not adequate during the growing season, supplemental overhead irrigation was applied. Plots were harvested on 10 Oct. 2012 (127 days after planting). Individual roots were evaluated for damage from natural infestations of SPFB, WG larvae, SPW, and the WDS complex (Wireworm, Diabrotica, Systena). WDS severity index was determined using a rating scale where 1 = 1-5 holes or scars, 2 = 6-10 holes or scars, 4 = >10 holes or scars. SPFB, WG, and SPW data were the percentages of roots that were damaged by these insects. The percentages of uninjured roots (undamaged by any of the soil insect pests) also were determined for each entry. Data were subjected to ANOVA, and means were separated by Fisher’s protected least significant difference at the 5% probability level. ANOVA indicated that there were highly significant genotype effects for percentage of uninjured roots, WDS index, the percentage of roots injured by flea beetles, the percentage of roots injured by white grubs, and the percentage of roots injured by sweetpotato weevils (Table 1). No significant block (replication) effects were observed for any variable. Twenty genotypes had significantly less overall insect injury (i.e., higher percentage of undamaged roots), and 18 genotypes had significantly lower WDS indices than did the two susceptible checks. All but four genotypes had significantly less injury by flea beetles than did ‘SC1149-19’. Nineteen genotypes had significantly less grub damage, and 35 had significantly less weevil damage than did ‘SC1149-19’. 1 Arthropod Management Tests 2013, Vol. 38 doi: 10.4182/amt.2013.M3 Table 1. Sweet potato SPW-damaged Uninjured WDS SPFB-damaged WG-damaged genotype roots, % severity index roots, % roots, % roots, % Ruddy 95.0a 0.03q 1.8p 0.3cd 0.0h 07-135 84.4ab 0.12q 4.7n-p 0.8b-d 0.0h 07-182 81.7ab 0.14pq 2.1p 0.0d 3.9e-h Charleston Scarlet 80.9ab 0.13pq 8.3k-p 0.0d 0.0h 07-119 76.6a-c 0.15pq 11.0j-p 0.0d 1.2gh 07-117 71.6b-d 0.23n-q 10.4k-p 1.3b-d 2.1f-h 09-061 69.6b-e 0.23n-q 10.3k-p 0.9b-d 1.1gh 04-531NC 69.5b-e 0.25m-q 10.6k-p 0.0d 2.1f-h Regal 68.2b-f 0.34j-p 3.8op 0.0d 0.0h 08-779NC 67.4b-f 0.39m-q 7.9l-p 0.4cd 0.0h 07-073 66.2b-f 0.16o-q 19.6c-k 0.5cd 2.8e-h 09-050 60.4c-g 0.33j-p 11.7i-p 0.0d 4.2d-h 09-077 60.2c-g 0.30l-q 11.5i-p 0.7b-d 6.4d-h 09-083 59.0c-h 0.39h-o 9.3k-p 0.0d 4.3d-h 09-113 57.7c-i 0.37i-p 12.4h-p 0.7b-d 0.7h 09-072 57.6c-i 0.48f-n 9.0k-p 1.1b-d 2.3f-h 09-080 55.1d-i 0.32k-p 14.6g-o 0.9b-d 5.3d-h 09-134 54.1d-i 0.39h-o 8.7k-p 0.9b-d 8.5d-h 09-017 51.4e-j 0.45f-n 5.9m-p 0.0d 5.3d-h 09-091 49.9f-k 0.50e-m 8.6k-p 0.0d 7.0d-h 09-146 44.8g-l 0.44g-n 22.7c-i 0.0d 4.2d-h W-258 40.7h-m 0.64b-i 11.9i-p 1.0b-d 4.0e-h 09-046 38.9i-n 0.50e-m 17.6e-l 0.0d 6.3d-h Covington 38.8i-n 0.69b-g 7.4l-p 0.8b-d 7.3d-h 09-136 34.5j-o 0.59c-j 22.2c-j 0.5cd 7.9d-h 09-024 34.1j-o 0.47f-n 30.2a-c 0.9b-d 32.2a 09-069 32.9j-o 0.65b-h 6.0m-p 0.0d 7.0d-h Diane 32.7j-o 0.65b-h 9.0k-p 0.0d 7.2d-h 09-042 32.6j-o 0.78a-d 25.9c-g 2.7ab 7.9d-h 09-015 31.8k-o 0.62b-i 23.6c-h 0.0d 14.0b-d 09-041 30.7l-o 0.57c-k 18.1d-l 0.0d 12.5c-e 09-097 30.3l-o 0.56d-l 26.0c-f 0.0d 22.4a-c 09-129 29.5l-o 0.59c-k 15.2f-n 0.0d 28.0a Beauregard 29.0l-o 0.84a-c 14.8f-o 0.0d 5.3d-h 09-123 26.1l-o 0.71b-g 15.9e-n 0.8b-d 11.1d-g 09-212 25.3m-o 0.59c-k 40.6a 0.0d 9.3d-h 09-104 22.9m-o 0.87ab 17.1e-m 1.8b-d 11.7d-f 09-012 21.3no 0.77b-e 26.5c-e 2.2a-c 12.0d-f 09-130 20.3no 0.75b-e 29.1b-d 0.7b-d 26.4a SC1149-19 18.5o 0.72b-f 39.3ab 2.2a-c 23.6ab 09-052 17.7o 1.05a 29.0b-d 4.3a 6.4d-h Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (P =0.05, Fisher’s Least Significant Difference). Severity index: 1=1-5 scars, 2=6-10 scars, 4=>10 scars, averaged over all roots; maximum score = 4.0. Check cultivars resistant to the WDS complex. Susceptible check cultivars.

Journal

Arthropod Management Tests – Oxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2013

There are no references for this article.