Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:44:14.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigations on Heliothis armigera (HB.) in Uganda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

T. H. Coaker
T. H. Coaker
Affiliation:
Empire Cotton Growing Corporation, Cotton Research Station, Namulonge, Uganda.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A survey of the populations of eggs and larvae of Heliothis armigera (Hb.) was made on the Cotton Research Station, Namulonge, in Buganda Province, Uganda, over the four-year period, 1954–57 inclusive, on cotton, maize, groundnuts, beans and, in one year, sunflower. The populations encountered were low in comparison with some other cotton areas in Africa. The oviposition rate on each crop closely followed the flowering cycle, and there was no indication of the population from one crop influencing that on a subsequent crop, even when their flowering cycles overlapped. Under the normal crop sequence there is a sufficient gap between the attractive phases of successive crops to cause dispersal, possibly to wild host-plants, of the moths emerging from pupae bred in the preceding crop.

The variation in population from year to year on a given crop was no greater than that between different localities in any one season. Maize and sunflower did not prove successful when tested as trap crops grown adjacent to cotton.

Earias spp. and Argyroploce leucotreta Meyr. were less abundant than Heliothis and together constituted only 27 per cent, of the total population of Lepidopterous larvae on cotton.

A method is described for breeding H. armigera, in the laboratory, in which the mean duration of the various stages was: egg, 4 days; larva, 24·8 days; pupa, 22·9 days; preoviposition period, 3·1 days; and oviposition period, 10·4 days. The mean number of eggs laid per female was 751·6, of which 71·4 per cent, hatched. Larval diets consisting of differing species and parts of food-plants caused significant differences in larval and pupal periods, the former being least (21·8 days) on maize silks and greatest (33·6 days) on sunflower corolla and receptacle, and the latter least (19·7 days) after larval feeding on three-week-old maize cobs and greatest (26 days) after seven-week-old cotton bolls. Pupae developing from larvae collected from the field did not exhibit any diapause or resting stage.

Two egg parasites and 15 larval parasites (three of which were probably secondary) were bred from material of H. armigera collected in the field, but the degree of parasitism remained low throughout the year. A nuclear polyhedral virus disease of the larvae was also recorded.

It is concluded that under the climatic conditions encountered, H. armigera is active throughout the year because wild or cultivated food-plants are always available and no resting stage of the insect is induced; this continuous activity is accompanied by biologically controlling factors that maintain populations stable at a relatively low level.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , November 1959 , pp. 487 - 506
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

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

Andrewartha, H. G. & Birch, L. C. (1954). The distribution and abundance of animals.—782 pp. Chicago, III., Univ. Chicago Pr.Google Scholar
Barber, G. W. (1936). The cannibalistic habits of the corn ear worm.—Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 499, 18 pp.Google Scholar
Coaker, T. H. (1957). Studies of crop loss following insect attack on cotton in East Africa. II. Further experiments in Uganda.—Bull. ent. Res. 48 pp. 851–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coaker, T. H. (1958). Experiments with a virus disease of the cotton bollworm Heliothis armigera (Hbn.).—Ann. appl. Biol. 46 pp. 536–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ditman, L. P., Weiland, G. S. — jrGuill, J. H. (1940). The metabolism in the corn earworm. III. Weight, water and diapause.—J. econ. Ent. 33 pp. 282–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SirHutchinson, J., Manning, H. L. & Farbrother, H. G. (1958). Crop water requirements of cotton.—J. agric. Sci. 51 pp. 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, E. P. (1936). Investigations on the cotton boll worm, Heliothis obsoleta, Fabr.—Publ. Brit. S. Afr. Co. no. 4a pp. 21–82.Google Scholar
Jones, E. P. (1937). The overwintering pupa of Heliothis armigera, Hubn. (obsoleta, Fabr.).—I. Effect of temperature and moisture.—Publ. Brit. S. Afr. Co. no. 6a pp. 19–36.Google Scholar
McKinlay, K. S. (1956). Cotton pests in the Eastern Province, Tanganyika Territory.—Emp. Cott. Gr. Rev. 33 pp. 282–287.Google Scholar
McKinlay, K. S. (1957). Control of cotton pests in the Western Province, Tanganyika Territory.—Emp. Cott. Gr. Rev. 34 pp. 93–98.Google Scholar
Mckinlay, K. S. & Geering, Q. A. (1957). Studies of crop loss following insect attack on cotton in East Africa. I. Experiments in Uganda and Tanganyika.—Bull. ent. Res. 48 pp. 833–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, H. L. (1956). The statistical assessment of rainfall probability and its application in Uganda agriculture.—Proc. roy. Soc. (B) 144 pp. 460–480.Google Scholar
Marshall, J. (1936). The distribution and sampling of insect populations in the field with special reference to the American bollworm, Heliothis obsoleta Fabr.—Ann. appl. Biol. 23 pp. 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelmore, A. P. G. (1955). Annual report, Section of Entomology.—Rep. Dep. Agric. Uganda 1954 pp. 114–118.Google Scholar
Michelmore, A. P. G. (1956). Annual report, Section of Entomology.—Rep. Dep. Agric. Uganda 1955 pp. 167–176.Google Scholar
Parsons, F. S. (1939). Investigations on the cotton bollworm, Heliothis armigera Hüsbn. (obsoleta, Fabr.). Part I. The annual march of bollworm incidence and related factors.—Bull. ent. Res. 30 pp. 321–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, F. S. (1940 a). Investigations on the cotton bollworm, Heliothis armigera, Hübn. (obsoleta, Fabr.). Part II. The incidence of parasites in quantitative relation to bollworm populations in South Africa.—Bull, ent. Res. 31 pp. 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, F. S. (1940 b). Investigations on the cotton bollworm, Heliothis armigera, Hübn. Part III. Relationships between oviposition and the flowering curves of food-plants.—Bull. ent. Res. 31 pp. 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, F. S. & Ullyett, G. C. (1934). Investigations on the control of the American and red bollworms of cotton in S. Africa.—Bull. ent. Res. 25 pp. 349–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, E. O. (1950). Field key to the principal disorders of cotton in Africa.—Emp. Cott. Gr. Rev. 27 pp. 10–15.Google Scholar
Rainey, R. C. (1948). Observations on the development of the cotton boll, with particular reference to changes in susceptibility to pests and diseases.—Ann. appl. Biol. 35 pp. 64–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tothill, J. D. Ed. (1940). Agriculture in Uganda.—551 pp. Oxford, Univ. Pr.Google Scholar
Valentine, E. W. (1955). Entomology.—Progr. Rep. Exp. Stas Emp. Cott. Gr. Corp. 1953–54 Tanganyika (East. Prov.) pp. 6–10.Google Scholar
Valentine, E. W. (1956). Entomology.—Progr. Rep. Exp. Stas Emp. Cott. Gr. Corp. 1954–55 Tanganyika (East. Prov.) pp. 10–14.Google Scholar