ORIENTATION PREFERENCE OF SWEET POTATO WEEVIL, Cylas formicarius ADULTS IN SWEET POTATO TURS

BHARTI BAGHEL¹*, RAHUL SAHU², JITENDRA SINGH^3
1ICAR - Krishi Vigyan Kendra,Rajnandgaon, 491441, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, 492012, Chhattisgarh
²ICAR-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Bastar, 494005, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, 492012, Chhattisgarh
³Department of Vegetable Science, Raipur, 492012, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, 492012, Chhattisgarh
* Corresponding Author : bhartibaghel27@gmail.com

Received : 17-03-2018     Accepted : 23-03-2018     Published : 30-03-2018
Volume : 10     Issue : 6       Pages : 5494 - 5496
Int J Agr Sci 10.6 (2018):5494-5496

Keywords : Sweet potato, Cylas formicarius, Weevil infestation, Genotype
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Author thankful to Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, 492012, Chhattisgarh
Author Contribution : All author equally contributed

Ten genotypes of sweet potato tuber crops were evaluated against sweet potato weevil for sweet potato tubers preference in the College of Agriculture, IGKV, Raipur under laboratory conditions during Rabi season of 2014-15 and 2015-16. The orientation studies were conducted to evaluate the sweet potato genotypes tuber for orientation of weevil adults and more/less preferred genotypes by weevils. The results of these studies revealed that the IGSP-C-15 had least orientation and less preferred for orientation by sweet potato weevils with 3.82 weevils per tuber. It was followed by Indira Madhur and Indira Nandini with 4.88 and 5.46 weevils per tuber. On the other hand, maximum orientation of 12.94 weevils per tuber was recorded on genotype Kalmegh, which means the weevil adults were more attracted to genotype Kalmegh. The least oriented genotypes were good for farmers field as it will be less affected by weevils and more economical.

1. Azam M. (2007) Ph.D. Thesis, University of Jammu, Jammu, India.
2. Chalfant R.B., Jansson R.K., Seal D.R. and Schalk J.M. (1990) Annu. Rev. Entomol., 35, 157-180.
3. Cockerham K.L. and Deen O.T. Christian M.B. and Newsom L.D. (1954) La Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. No.: 483.
4. Gupta N. (2000) Ph.D. Thesis, University of Jammu, Jammu, India.
5. Khajuria S. (1991) M. Phill. Dissertation, University of Jammu, Jammu, India.
6. Khan Z.R., Rueda B.P. and Caballero P. (1989) Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata., 52, 7-13.
7. Nair M.R. (1975) Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, pp.404.
8. Nottingham S.F., Son K.C., Wilson D.D. Severson R.F. and Keys S.J. (1989) Journal of Chemical Ecology, 15(3), pp. 895-903.
9. Nottingham S.F., Son K.C., Wilson D.D., Severson R.F. and Kays S.J. (1987) Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata., 45,271-275.
10. Nur A., Zarith M., Shuhada A., Khadijab S. and Faziha N. (2017) Malaysian Applied Biology Journal, 46(3),81-88.
11. Okada Y., Sakai T., Yoshida M. and Ichinose K. (2015) Sweet potato Res. Front, 31,2.
12. Pillai K.S. and Lal S.S. (1978) Journal of Root Crops, 4, 45-47.
13. Rajamma P. (1982) Agricultural Research Journal of Kerala, 20(1), 84-85.
14. Ronnie D., Wilson B.A.L., Gavin A. and Mark S. (2017) Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 1, pp. 148.
15. Sharma B. and Bhatia S. (1993) Indian forester, 119(8), 663-668.
16. Singh V.K. and Sharma R.C. (2003) Indian Journal of Entomology, 65(1), 24-27.
17. Son K. C., Severson R. F., Arrendale R. F. and Kays S.J. (1990) Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 115(4), pp.696-699.
18. Zarazaga M. A. A. and Lyal C. H. C. (1999) The Natural History Museum. Entomopraxis, S. C. P. Edition.