Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T00:36:37.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resistance of selected melon lines to the carmine spider mite Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Acari: Tetranychidae)–field and laboratory experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Fadel Mansour ,
Z. Shain ,
Z. Karchi  and
U. Gerson
Fadel Mansour*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Organization, Newe Ya'ar Research Center, Haifa, Israel
Z. Shain
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Organization, Newe Ya'ar Research Center, Haifa, Israel
Z. Karchi
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Organization, Newe Ya'ar Research Center, Haifa, Israel
U. Gerson
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel
*
ARO, Newe Ya'ar Research Center, P.O. Haifa 31999, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The resistance of two melon lines (CHI-7 and BUS-7) selected for resistance to the carmine spider mite, Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval), and of the susceptible line (NY), was studied under field and laboratory conditions. Significant differences among lines were observed at different growth stages. Throughout the season, the resistant lines had reduced populations of mites, 35–100% lower on CHI-7 and 25–100% lower on BUS-7, compared with the susceptible line NY. Laboratory evaluation of antibiosis to the mite at different plant growth stages showed that on CHI-7 and BUS-7 mite fecundity was reduced by 29–60% and 43–83%, respectively.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 84 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 265 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

De Ponti, O.M.B (1982) Plant resistance to insects: a challenge to plant breeders and entomologists. pp. 337–347in Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium Insect-Plant Relationships 1982. Wageningen, Pudoc.Google Scholar
Hussey, N.W. & Scopes, N.E.A (1985) Greenhouse vegetables (Britain). pp. 285–297in Helle, W. & Sabelis, M.W (Eds) Spider mites, their biology, natural enemies and control. Volume 1B. Amsterdam, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Mansour, F. & Karchi, Z. (1990) The evaluation of antibiosis of selected lines for resistance of melon to the carmine spider mit Tetranychus cinnabarmus (Acan Tetranychidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 80, 345–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansour, F. & Plaut, H.N. (1979) The effectiveness of various acaricides against resistant and susceptible carmine spider mites. Phytoparasitica 7, 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansour, F., Karchi, Z. & Omari, N. (1987) Resistance of melon to the carmine spider mite, Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval) (Acari: Tetranychidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 77, 603–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerson, H., Giskin, M. & Edeistein, M. (1985) Foliar nutrition of muskmelon. II Field experiments Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 16, 1165–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scully, T.B., East, D.A., Edelson, V.J. & Cox, L.E. (1991) Resistance to the twospotted spider mite in muskmelon. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 104, 276–278.Google Scholar
Tulisalo, U. (1972) Resistance to the two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch. (Acari: Tetranychidae) in the genera Cucumis and Citrullus (Cucurbitaceae) Annales Entomologici Fennici 38, 60–64.Google Scholar
van de Vrie, M. (1985) Control of Tetranychidae in crops Greenhouse ornamentals. pp. 273–283in Helle, W. & Sabelis, M.W. (Eds) Spider mites, their biology, natural enemies and control. Volume 1B. Amsterdam, ElsevierGoogle Scholar
Wysoki, M. (1985) Other outdoor crops, pp 375–384in Helle, W. & Sabelis, M.W.(Eds) Spider mites, their biology, natural enemies and control. Volume. 1B. Amsterdam, Elsevier.Google Scholar