Chilo tumidicostalis

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Partial ecological life table It was not feasible to construct complete ecological life tables of C. tumidicostalis, therefore, a partial ecological life table was constructed using laboratory life history data. It was an indicator of the innate mortality and not to other mortality factors. The mortality could differ if compared with the investigation in the field and it was anticipated that the mortality should be much higher because under the field condition they were limited by various biological factures such as parasites, predators, insect pathogens and other physical factors. The survivorship curves of C. tumidicostalis was constructed by using the number of individuals survived in each developmental stages (lx) against stages of development (X) The partial ecological life table of C. tumidicostalis was illustrated in Table 10. It was obvious that high mortality during first larval instars and also the second larval instars. The survivorship curve, as shown in Figure 12, indicated that the mortality was high during the first and second larval instars. This mortality was not high during the subsequent stages of development. This was probably due to certain physiological factors. Mortality obtained under laboratory was apparently less than mortality observed under field condition. Under field condition high mortality occurred in last larval instars (instars 5, 6, 7) and caused mainly by the natural enemies, particularly due to the parasitization of larval parasites, C. flavipes. 36
Table 10 Partial ecological life table of Chilo tumidicostalis (Hampson) under laboratory condition (28 ± 2 o C and 75 ± 2% RH) Stage of development (X) No. surviving in X (lx) No. dying in X (dx) Percent mortality (100 qx) 37 Generation mortality (100dx/n) Egg: 487 12 2.4640 2.4640 Larva: Instar I 475 119 25.0526 24.4353 Instar II 356 129 36.2359 26.4887 Instar III 227 34 14.9779 6.9815 Instar IV 193 29 15.0259 5.9548 Instar V, VI, VII 164 24 14.6341 4.9281 Prepupa: 140 18 12.8571 3.6960 Pupa: 122 9 7.3770 1.8480 Adult: 113 - - - Male 44 - - - Female 69 - - -
Page 2: THESIS ECOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE SUGA
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 7 and 8: (Hampson) with six larval instars
Page 9 and 10: LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Figure
Page 11 and 12: ECOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE SUGARCANE M
Page 13 and 14: stated that the relative importance
Page 15 and 16: epeated mating habits, males mated
Page 17 and 18: MATERIALS AND METHODS Laboratory st
Page 19 and 20: the capsule of each larval instars
Page 21 and 22: Biological Studies of The Important
Page 23 and 24: RAINFALL (mm) RELATIVE HUMIDITY (%)
Page 25 and 26: Figure 3 Eggs mass of Chilo tumidic
Page 27 and 28: Table 1 Width of head capsule of Ch
Page 29 and 30: Table 3 Width of head capsule of Ch
Page 31 and 32: WIDTH OF HEAD CAPSULES (mm) 2.5 2 1
Page 33 and 34: WIDTH OF HEAD CAPSULES (mm) 3 2.5 2
Page 35 and 36: A B Figure 9 Pupae of Chilo tumidic
Page 37 and 38: Table 4 Body measurements of variou
Page 39 and 40: Table 5 Duration of various develop
Page 41 and 42: Table 7 Duration of various develop
Page 43 and 44: Table 8 Biological life table, age-
Page 45: lxmx 20 15 10 5 0 33 36 39 42 45 48
Page 49 and 50: Survey Natural Enemies of Chilo tum
Page 51 and 52: Figure 14 The full grown larvae of
Page 53 and 54: Figure 15 Pupa of Cotesia flavipes
Page 55 and 56: Figure 17 Female adult of Cotesia f
Page 57 and 58: Duration of developmental periods T
Page 59 and 60: Figure 19 The female adult of Cotes
Page 61 and 62: Figure 20 Larvae of Tetrastichus sp
Page 63 and 64: Figure 22 The pupae of Tetrastichus
Page 65 and 66: Figure 24 Male adult of Tetrastichu
Page 67 and 68: Duration of developmental periods T
Page 69 and 70: Figure 26 The female of Tetrastichu
Page 71 and 72: Population Study of Chilo tumidicos
Page 73 and 74: POPULATION DENSITY (LOG N+1) 4.5 4
Page 75 and 76: PERCENT PARASITIZATION 50 45 40 35
Page 77 and 78: parasites; Telenomus sp. (Hymenopte
Page 79 and 80: and in control plot were 0, 0, 5.25
Page 81 and 82: Cantelo, W.W. and P. Pholboon. 1965
Page 83 and 84: Morris,R.F. and C.A. Miller. 1954.
Page 85: _____. 1999. Success of Cotesia fla

Chilo tumidicostalis

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?