| Literature DB >> 34072729 |
Purushottam Gyawali1, Shaw-Yhi Hwang1, Paola Sotelo-Cardona2, Ramasamy Srinivasan2.
Abstract
Solanum viarum has been proposed as a potential dead-end trap crop for the management of Helicoverpa armigera because of its unsuitability for larval growth and survival despite being overwhelmingly preferred for oviposition. This study delved into the different S. viarum accessions for ovipositional preference and non-suitability for larval growth and survival of H. armigera. Besides, foliage trichomes, acylsugars, and phenolic content of S. viarum plants were assessed and compared with tomato. Since there is no significant variation in the ovipositional preference and larval performance of H. armigera, our result revealed that all those evaluated accessions of S. viarum have the potential to be used as a dead-end trap crop for the management of H. armigera. However, significant variation among the S. viarum accessions in terms of H. armigera oviposition was also evident in a no-choice experiment. Because of high-density glandular trichomes, acylsugars, and phenolic content, S. viarum significantly impaired H. armigera larval growth and survival compared to the tomato. Hence, our study elucidated that the S. viarum plant fits with the criteria for dead-end trap crop, and has the potential as a dead-end trap crop for the H. armigera, which needs to be tested under large, open-field conditions.Entities:
Keywords: Solanum lycopersicum; Solanum viarum; cotton bollworm; dead-end trap crop; oviposition; tomato fruitworm
Year: 2021 PMID: 34072729 PMCID: PMC8227471 DOI: 10.3390/insects12060506
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Insects ISSN: 2075-4450 Impact factor: 2.769
Figure 1Number of eggs per plant (mean ± SEM) laid by Helicoverpa armigera female moths on different accessions of Solanum viarum plants (n = 10) under a multiple choice experiment.
Number of eggs per plant (mean ± SEM) laid by Helicoverpa armigera female moths on tomato and Solanum viarum accessions (n = 5), under a two-choice experiment. Figures in parentheses are square root (X + 0.5) transformed values. **p <0.001; *p < 0.05; NS p > 0.05.
| Plant Species | Number of Eggs Laid Per Plant (Mean ± SEM) | t-Value | Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 104.00 ± 66.18 | 0.4454 | 0.6791 | ns | |
| (8.28 ± 2.99) | ||||
| Tomato | 55.60 ± 19.67 | |||
| (7.04 ± 1.28) | ||||
| 182.80 ± 101.59 | 1.0232 | 0.3641 | ns | |
| (11.16 ± 3.83) | ||||
| Tomato | 50.50 ± 18.45 | |||
| (6.75 ± 1.18) | ||||
| 362.00 ± 102.89 | 4.8531 | 0.0083 | ** | |
| (18.07 ± 3.00) | ||||
| Tomato | 6.60 ± 3.84 | |||
| (2.23 ± 0.73) | ||||
| 580.00 ± 243.56 | 3.5657 | 0.0235 | * | |
| (21.19 ± 5.75) | ||||
| Tomato | 29.80 ± 23.83 | |||
| (4.23 ± 1.76) | ||||
| 180.40 ± 107.13 | 1.9046 | 0.1296 | ns | |
| (11.54 ± 3.45) | ||||
| Tomato | 17.80 ± 11.16 | |||
| (3.47 ± 1.25) | ||||
| 330.60 ± 165.82 | 3.2449 | 0.0315 | * | |
| (16.20 ± 4.14) | ||||
| Tomato | 23.00 ± 7.36 | |||
| (4.39 ± 1.02) | ||||
| 97.80 ± 45.06 | 1.2157 | 0.2909 | ns | |
| (8.56 ± 2.50) | ||||
| Tomato | 55.80 ± 41.07 | |||
| (6.08 ± 2.20) | ||||
| 281.80 ± 62.48 | 2.0954 | 0.1042 | ns | |
| (16.38 ± 1.87) | ||||
| Tomato | 103.60 ± 41.63 | |||
| (9.00 ± 2.40) |
Figure 2Number of eggs per plant (mean ± SEM) laid by Helicoverpa armigera female moths on Solanum viarum accessions (n = 5) under a no-choice experiment. Bars capped with the same letter(s) are not significantly different (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Number of eggs per plant (mean ± SEM) laid by Helicoverpa armigera female moths on a tomato plant in the absence or presence of volatiles from different Solanum viarum accessions (n = 5).
Trichome density (mean ± SEM) on tomato and Solanum viarum accessions. Means within a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD test (p ≤ 0.05).
| Plant | Glandular Trichome Density/mm2 Leaf | Non-Glandular Trichome Density/mm2 Leaf | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adaxial | Abaxial | Adaxial | Abaxial | |
| 3.88 ± 0.15 a | 7.12 ± 0.83 a | 4.90 ± 0.36 | 4.37 ± 0.08 b | |
| 2.75 ± 0.12 ab | 5.67 ± 0.77 ab | 5.05 ± 0.36 | 4.83 ± 0.16 b | |
| 2.75 ± 0.23 ab | 5.67 ± 0.15 ab | 4.56 ± 0.30 | 4.93 ± 0.62 b | |
| 3.05 ± 0.42 ab | 6.23 ± 0.17 a | 5.47 ± 0.85 | 4.14 ± 0.37 b | |
| 1.88 ± 0.26 b | 3.93 ± 0.17 b | 3.53 ± 0.19 | 3.57 ± 0.27 b | |
| 2.95 ± 0.36 ab | 6.25 ± 0.30 a | 5.02 ± 0.96 | 4.37 ± 0.33 b | |
| 2.63 ± 0.25 ab | 5.77 ± 0.48 ab | 5.81 ± 0.92 | 5.52 ± 0.45 b | |
| 2.87 ± 0.54 ab | 5.52 ± 0.45 ab | 4.47 ± 0.29 | 5.09 ± 0.33 b | |
| Tomato (check) | 1.88 ± 0.26 b | 0.60 ± 0.13 c | 6.38 ± 0.75 | 11.15 ± 0.49 a |
Figure 4Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) pictures of trichomes on both leaf surfaces of Solanum viarum accessions and tomato (Ad—adaxial surface, Ab—abaxial surface).
Total acyl sugar (µmol/g of dry weight) and phenolic content (mg/100 g of dry weight) in the foliage of Solanum viarum accessions (n = 3) and tomato (n = 3). Means within a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD test (p ≤ 0.05).
| Plant | Total Acyl Sugar (µmol/g of Dry Weight) | Total Phenolic Content (mg/100 g of Dry Weight) |
|---|---|---|
| 2.25 ± 0.23 | 2432.70 ± 192.65 ab | |
| 2.08 ± 0.05 | 2030.60 ± 242.89 b | |
| 2.04 ± 0.21 | 2568.42 ± 126.61 ab | |
| 1.79 ± 0.06 | 2384.26 ± 107.31 ab | |
| 2.26 ± 0.19 | 2298.66 ± 76.13 ab | |
| 1.81 ± 0.23 | 2674.01 ± 146.47 ab | |
| 2.45 ± 0.40 | 2825.50 ± 203.46 a | |
| 2.49 ± 0.12 | 2675.56 ± 136.49 ab | |
| Tomato | 1.68 ± 0.11 | 1170.67 ± 76.76 c |
Larval mortality, duration of larval development, and pupal weight of Helicoverpa armigera on Solanum viarum accessions, tomato leaves, and artificial diet. Means within a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD test (p ≤ 0.05).
| Treatments | Initial No. of Larvae | Larval Mortality (%) | Larval Development (Days) | Pupal Weight (mg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 55.00 ± 6.64 a | 27.10 ± 0.79 a | 119.14 ± 1.98 c | |
| 100 | 53.33 ± 4.41 a | 25.73 ± 0.47 a | 102.36 ± 2.55 c | |
| 100 | 55.00 ± 6.64 a | 27.18 ± 0.56 a | 116.43 ± 6.16 c | |
| 100 | 51.67 ± 6.67 a | 25.25 ± 0.43 a | 114.75 ± 6.00 c | |
| 100 | 56.67 ± 1.67 a | 25.1 ± 0.22 a | 119.73 ± 6.06 c | |
| 100 | 55.00 ± 7.64 a | 25.43 ± 0.26 a | 119.18 ± 0.93 c | |
| 100 | 60.00 ± 5.77 a | 26.75 ± 0.46 a | 110.13 ± 1.52 c | |
| 100 | 51.67 ± 7.26 a | 26.38 ± 0.69 a | 112.87 ± 3.99 c | |
| Tomato | 100 | 33.33 ± 1.67 ab | 20.71 ± 0.50 b | 175.76 ± 2.77 b |
| Artificial diet | 100 | 21.67 ± 1.67 b | 14.60 ± 0.59 c | 234.59 ± 3.50 a |
The Correlation between Helicoverpa armigera oviposition, larval survival and development, pupal weight, and plant parameters (trichome density, total acylsugar, and phenolic content). (n = 9), (Pearson correlation **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05).
| Correlation Between | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glandular Trichome | Non-Glandular Trichomes | Total Acylsugar Content | Total Phenolic Content | |||
| Adaxial | Abaxial | Adaxial | Abaxial | |||
| No-choice Test | −0.583 | −0.774 * | −0.771 * | −0.288 | −0.583 | −0.774 * |
|
| ||||||
| Larval mortality (%) | 0.534 | 0.850 ** | −0.696 * | −0.907 ** | 0.528 | 0.882 ** |
| Larval duration (days) | 0.389 | 0.811 ** | −0.676 * | −0.963 ** | 0.448 | 0.830 ** |
| Pupal wt. (mg) | −0.440 | −0.851 ** | 0.499 | 0.895 ** | −0.558 | −0.881 ** |
|
| ||||||
| Total acylsugar content | 0.174 | 0.372 | −0.456 | −0.418 | ||
| Total phenolic content | 0.505 | 0.830 ** | −0.437 | −0.792 * | ||
Figure 5Number of eggs per plant (mean ± SEM) laid by Helicoverpa armigera female moths in tomato and Solanum viarum mixtures; (a) on tomato plant only, and (b) total no of eggs laid per plant on both tomato and Solanum viarum plants with an increasing percentage of trap crop. p < 0.0001 *** indicates highly significant differences compared to 0% trap cropping and bars capped with the same letter(s) are not significantly different (p < 0.05).