| Literature DB >> 31835902 |
Roberto Rizzo1, Vittorio Farina2, Filippo Saiano2, Alberto Lombardo3, Ernesto Ragusa2, Gabriella Lo Verde2.
Abstract
The effective control of the plum fruit moth, Grapholita funebrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) still represents a difficult challenge for organic plum farming. Little information is available on the susceptibility of plum cultivars to this moth pest. We investigated the roles of several fruit parameters (i.e., shape, volume, hardness, fruit colour, and physiochemical properties) on the susceptibility of four different plum cultivars (Angeleno, Friar, President and Stanley) to G. funebrana attack. Field data demonstrated the importance of some fruit parameters (i.e., elongation index, sugar degree, titratable acidity, cover colour percentage) on susceptibility to G. funebrana infestation. Under laboratory conditions, colour and shape had a significant role in determining the time spent on false fruits, i.e., female moths preferred yellow and rounded fruits over elongated red or green fruits. Angeleno (yellow and rounded fruits) and Stanley (green and elongated fruits) were the most and least susceptible cultivars, respectively. Overall, this study adds useful knowledge about plum cultivar susceptibility to G. funebrana. Information reported here may be useful to improve integrated pest management strategies both in conventional and organic orchards because the use of less susceptible cultivars may reduce insecticidal treatments, limiting the development of resistance in target insects and the harmful side effects on beneficial species.Entities:
Keywords: Tortricidae; cultivar susceptibility; plum fruit moth
Year: 2019 PMID: 31835902 PMCID: PMC6955919 DOI: 10.3390/insects10120444
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Insects ISSN: 2075-4450 Impact factor: 2.769
Figure 1Infestation trend recorded on the four plum cultivars in the three years 2012–2014, and the mean number of Plum Fruit Moth males caught in pheromone traps placed in the two plum orchards.
Mean infestation percentages in the different plum cultivars in 2012–2014. Different letters indicate significant differences between cultivars within the same year, as resulted from the estimated binary regression model. A significant effect of date and cultivar on infestation is shown by the results of the model (** means p < 0.001, NS means not significant).
| Cultivar | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Angeleno | 29.17 a | 35.58 a | 42.38 a |
| Friar | - | 15.06 b | 27.38 b |
| President | 7.81 b | 25.96 c | 20.95 b |
| Stanley | 3.65 c | 5.45 d | 10.48 c |
| Binary logistic regression results | |||
| Date | χ2 = 77.19 ** (DF 3) | χ2 = 84.28 ** (DF 4) | χ2 = 179.54 ** (DF 7) |
| Cultivar | χ2 = 126.83 ** (DF 2) | χ2 = 113.07 ** (DF 3) | χ2 = 133.73 ** (DF 3) |
| Goodness-of-fit tests | χ2 = 717.17 NS (DF 1146) | χ2 = 1075.70 NS (DF 1240) | χ2 = 1598.95 NS (DF 1670) |
Figure 2Average values of the variables for which significant differences among the cultivars occurred (different letters indicate significant differences among the four cultivars, general linear model (GLM) followed by Tukey’s HSD test, p < 0.001). Volume (A), elongation index (B), hardness (C), and weight (D) were analysed using the Data Set 1, whereas Data Set 2 was used for total soluble solid (TSS) (E), pH (F), titratable acidity (TA) (G), and ground colour index (GCI) (H).
The F-values resulting from GLM analyses, singularly performed on each fruit parameter of the Data Set 1, showing the importance of each significant factor (p < 0.001) within fruit parameters.
| Factors | DF | F-Values | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volume | Weight | Hardness | Elongation Index | ||
| Cultivar | 3 | 56.97 | 115.23 | 78.89 | 3983.68 |
| Year | 1 | 26.84 | 19.34 | 16.27 | 67.77 |
| Cultivar * Year | 3 | 15.24 | 10.86 | 33.16 | 12.92 |
| Date (Year) | 10 | 351.92 | 422.61 | 309.50 | 72.45 |
| Tree (Cultivar, Year) | 76 | 5.18 | 5.75 | 2.11 | 3.34 |
| Total DF | 2927 | ||||
Classification of fruits from different cultivars compared with the groups determined by the discriminant analysis performed on all parameters. Coefficients show the impact of the different parameters in the correct attribution to the four cultivars.
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| |
| Angeleno | 46 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| Friar | 2 | 42 | 0 | 0 |
| President | 0 | 0 | 47 | 0 |
| Stanley | 0 | 0 | 1 | 48 |
| Total No. | 48 | 48 | 48 | 48 |
| No. correct | 46 | 42 | 47 | 48 |
| Proportion | 0.96 | 0.88 | 0.98 | 1.00 |
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
| |
| Constant | −19.15 | −25.79 | −8.67 | −42.48 |
| Volume | −8.29 | −15.73 | 9.23 | 14.80 |
| Elongation Index | −41.91 | −49.12 | 28.19 | 62.84 |
| Weight | 8.66 | 16.56 | −8.28 | −16.94 |
| Hardness | 2.36 | 1.70 | −0.90 | −3.16 |
| Titratable Acidity | −2.72 | −4.73 | 3.08 | 4.37 |
| pH | −1.59 | −1.53 | 0.76 | 2.37 |
| Total Soluble Solid | 0.21 | 1.03 | −0.12 | −1.12 |
| Ground Color Index | 1.39 | 3.94 | −1.73 | −3.60 |
| Cover Color Index | −4.25 | −5.02 | 2.07 | 7.19 |
| Cover Color Percentage | 1.26 | −0.03 | −1.09 | −0.15 |
The overall model obtained by including all the binary logistic analysis factors (date, cultivar, and fruit parameters, Overall Data Set). The model shows which factors significantly affect the infestation level.
| Source | DF | Adj Dev | Adj Mean | Chi-Square | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression | 21 | 424.67 | 20.22 | 424.67 | <0.001 |
| Titratable Acidity | 1 | 15.26 | 15.26 | 15.26 | <0.001 |
| Elongation Index * Cultivar | 3 | 30.29 | 10.10 | 30.29 | <0.001 |
| Total Soluble Solid * Cultivar | 3 | 27.29 | 9.10 | 27.29 | <0.001 |
| Titratable Acidity * Date | 11 | 166.21 | 15.11 | 166.21 | <0.001 |
| Cover Colour Percentage * Cultivar | 3 | 16.06 | 5.35 | 16.06 | <0.001 |
| Error | 170 | 134.91 | 0.79 | ||
| Total | 191 | 559.58 |
The model obtained including only date and cultivar in the binary logistic analysis (Overall Data Set). Results show that both factors, but not their interaction, significantly affect the infestation level.
| Source | DF | Adj Dev | Adj Mean | Chi-Square | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression | 14 | 387.90 | 27.71 | 387.87 | <0.001 |
| Cultivar | 3 | 176.60 | 58.85 | 176.56 | <0.001 |
| Date | 11 | 229.30 | 20.84 | 229.27 | <0.001 |
| Error | 177 | 171.70 | 0.97 | ||
| Total | 191 | 559.60 |
Figure 3Percentages of time spent by the Plum Fruit Moth females on false fruits of different colours in trials 1 and 2, in which only elongated or rounded fruits were used, respectively. Means with same letter are not significantly different (ANOVA followed by Tukey’s HSD test).
Figure 4The mean percentages of time spent by the Plum Fruit Moth females on the false fruits in the trial in which the false fruits of different colours and shapes were used.