“Key Informant Survey” of Production, Value, Losses and ... - DfID

More documents

Recommendations

Info

B. zonata Guava Haryana Rana et al. 1990 Among 20 guava cultivars tested in the field in Haryana, Nasik and China Surkha were relatively least susceptible to B. zonata, having 20%. Carpomyia vesuviana B. dorsalis, Dichocrocis punctiferalis Carypomyia vesuviana Carpomyia vesuviana Carpomyia vesuviana Jujube Jodhpur, Rajasthan Sachan 1984 Damage to the fruits of 4 improved varieties of ber (Ziziphus jujuba [Z. mauritiana]), namely Seb, Jogia, Gola and Mundia-Marhera, by the tephritid Carpomyia vesuviana was assessed at harvest in the 1973-74 season at Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India, where the fruit fly is a serious pest. The results showed that 3.75, 7.68, 16.60 and 19.6% of the fruits of these varieties were damaged, respectively. Observations on 20 varieties that had received 3 applications of sprays containing 0.02% parathion in the 1st and 4th weeks of November and in the 3rd week of December (0.5 to 7 ml insecticide/tree 5 years old) indicated 98-100% protection of fruits against damage by the fruit fly. Guava Punjab Sandhu et al. 1979 The incidence of B. dorsalis and Dichocrocis punctiferalis on the fruit was determined in 9 guava cvs. The former ranged from very low in the cvs Red Flesh and Seedless to very high in the cv. Apple and the latter from very low in the cvs Guinea and Red Flesh to very high in the cv. Seedless Jujube New Delhi Sharma et al. 1998 Thirty varieties of ber (Zizyphus mauritiana) were screened for varietal resistance against Carpomyia vesuviana in 1989-91 in New Delhi. Regular observations to record the fruit infestation were continued till harvesting. The cultivars were categorised into different grades of susceptibility, considering the per cent fruits damaged on the basis of number and weight. The categories were: totally immune, highly resistant 1-10%, resistant 11-20%, moderately resistant 21-30%, moderately susceptible 31-40%, susceptible 41-50%, and highly susceptible >50%. None of the cultivars was immune to the pest. However, cv. Tikdi and Illaichi were highly resistant in both the years. Cv. Umran, Tas Bataso, Deshi Alwar, Kishmis, were resistant or moderately resistant. The fruit of cultivars with high infestation and graded highly susceptible included Akhrota, Bagwadi, Gola, Katha Rajasthan, Dandan, Seo and Laddu. Jujube Singh 1984 Data are presented on the extent and severity of fruit infestation by Carpomyia vesuviana on 25 Zizyphus [Ziziphus] mauritiana cultivars, averaged over 3 years. The extent of infestation varied among cultivars (from 6.7% in Tikadi to 73%), indicating that flies prefer certain cultivars for egg-laying. Eggs/fruit did not vary significantly, but the percentage of larvae hatched varied among cultivars, indicating varying degrees of antibiosis. There was a positive correlation between percentage fruit infestation and percentage hatching (r = 0.9038). Jujube Rajasthan Singh and Vashishtha 1985 Field trials were carried out in Rajasthan, India, in 1979-82 to assess the resistance of some cultivars of ber (Ziziphus mauritiana) to attack by the tephritid Carpomyia vesuviana. The most susceptible varieties were Dandan Gola, Gola Gurgaon No. 3, Kaithli Hissar and Kakro Gola, while Ilaichi was moderately resistant and Tikadi was resistant Integrated Management of Fruit Flies in India: Knowledge Review 46 of 110
B. cucurbitae Singh et al. 2000 The host preferences of the red pumpkin beetle, Aulacophora foveicollis, and the melon fruit fly, B. cucurbitae, were studied using different cucurbits during the summer.The percentage of fruit damage by the melon fruit fly was under 50% in all cases. However, percentage damage was significantly highest on watermelon (28.55%) and bitter gourd (31.27%). B. cucurbitae Melon? Tewatia and Dhankhar 1996 Inheritance of resistance to melon fruitfly was studied in 2 crosses of resistant Faizabad 17 X susceptible Pusa do Mausami and susceptible Arka Harit X resistant Kerala 1. Data on the percentage of infested fruits were recorded in parent lines, F1, F2, BC1 and BC2. Results indicated that resistance is dominant over susceptibility, and both additive and dominance gene effects were important in inheritance of resistance. However, a duplicate type of epistasis was noted. For further genetic improvement, reciprocal recurrent selection is suggested. B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd Thakur et al. 1994 Stability analysis for economic traits and infestation of melon fruit-fly (B. cucurbitae) in bittergourd (Momordica charantia) were studied. 10 cultivars were sown out of which C96 was the most stable for fruits/plant and had the lowest incidence of fruit fly infestation. NDBT1 had the most stable resistance to B. cucurbitae. B. cucubitae Bitter gourd Ludhiana, Punjab Thakur et al. 1996 Information on yield correlations is derived from data on 7 characters (including fruit fly B. cucurbitae infection and total yield) in 10 Momordica charantia varieties (BG14, Arka Harit, Kalyanpur Sona, ARU41, NDBT1, Pusa Do Mausmi, Priya, Pusa Vishesh, Pusa Hybrid-1 and C96) grown at Ludhiana (Punjab). B. cucurbitae infection was negatively correlated with fruits/plant and total marketable yield. BG14 was the most promising variety with respect to yield components and B. cucurbitae resistance Integrated Management of Fruit Flies in India: Knowledge Review 47 of 110
Page 1 and 2:
Dear Colleague, Integrated Manageme
Page 3 and 4:
each zone will be divided by the to
Page 5 and 6:
Sheet 2. Production and fruit fly l
Page 7 and 8:
Product: Muskmelon Himalayan Highla
Page 9 and 10:
Product: Snake Gourd Himalayan High
Page 11 and 12:
Integrated Management of Fruit Flie
Page 13 and 14:
Palanpur Pumpkin 2 Anand Bitter Gou
Page 15 and 16:
Integrated Management of Fruit Flie
Page 17 and 18:
Navsari Thiruvananthapuram
Page 19 and 20:
The power of parapheromones. This I
Page 21 and 22:
Cluster “Western” “Southern
Page 23 and 24:
Indian fruit fly control and the So
Page 25 and 26:
INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF FRUIT FLIE
Page 27 and 28:
They used to be nearer Ahmedabad, a
Page 29 and 30:
FRUIT FLY CONTROL: SPRAYS (i) Spray
Page 31 and 32:
fruit borer, little leaf (a mycopla
Page 33 and 34:
ores the vine from tender portion,
Page 35 and 36:
(DDVP). He is applying both ME and
Page 37 and 38:
CROPS He said that he is growing bi
Page 39 and 40:
that spraying insecticides is only
Page 41 and 42:
vegetables not by having greater wa
Page 43 and 44:
advantage of bitter gourd? He start
Page 45 and 46:
isk of complete failure of crop. Am
Page 47 and 48:
FF MANAGEMENT He said that he using
Page 49 and 50:
eady-to-harvest fruits. Farmers los
Page 51 and 52:
Gandevi. #G008 DATE: 03/01/04 TEAM:
Page 53 and 54:
#R004 DATE:08/03 TEAM: JT/CVV. He i
Page 55 and 56:
he has found this as very reasonabl
Page 57 and 58:
improving the fertility condition o
Page 59 and 60:
50 cents, banana intercropped in co
Page 61 and 62:
with grass. When the field is left
Page 63 and 64:
sells his own produce. CROPS He gro
Page 65 and 66:
it. When JS mimes a jumping FF magg
Page 67 and 68:
other pests). RICE AND ITS PESTS In
Page 69 and 70:
(mother) feed voraciously on leaf l
Page 71 and 72:
yellow and drop. On opening of the
Page 73 and 74:
including semilooper because fruit
Page 75 and 76:
off prematurely from plants. Thus p
Page 77 and 78:
PEST: FRUIT FLIES Losses: Bitter go
Page 79 and 80:
PEST: SEMILOOPER Creates problems i
Page 81 and 82:
semi looper pest bitter gourd at an
Page 83 and 84:
FRUIT FLIES July sown crop suffers
Page 85 and 86:
LEAF CURL He said that this serious
Page 87 and 88:
only own farm total area five ha. N
Page 89 and 90:
PEST 1 - MANGO HOPPER is number one
Page 91 and 92:
PROJECT MEMORANDUM on behalf of the
Page 93 and 94:
4. Starting and finishing dates 1 J
Page 95 and 96:
Fruit flies, although a serious pes
Page 97 and 98:
Department of Agricultural Extensio
Page 99 and 100:
SECTION C: SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND 17
Page 101 and 102:
Pakistan-UK Fruit Fly Project 1998-
Page 103 and 104:
This will connect the field researc
Page 105 and 106:
Narrative Summary Goal Objectively
Page 107 and 108:
YEAR 2 2002-2003 MONTH Activity A M
Page 109 and 110:
Table I.2. Subjectively-derived syn
Page 111 and 112:
Jujube 3 - S Bawal Dashad et al. (1
Page 113 and 114:
Appendix II. Scientific Research on
Page 115 and 116:
Museum has B. dorsalis specimens re
Page 117 and 118:
and if neem can be used in attracta
Page 119 and 120:
coast. In the Faisalabad area attac
Page 121 and 122:
elative, and offer little real comm
Page 123 and 124:
Appendix III. Work Plan ACTIVITIES
Page 125 and 126:
1.1.4: Tabulation of Controls Findi
Page 127 and 128:
other methods. In fields where loss
Page 129 and 130:
In addition to the Key Informant Su
Page 131 and 132:
killing points”, and these techni
Page 133 and 134:
tiers. It is proposed to replace th
Page 135 and 136:
general benefit. Socially-cooperati
Page 137 and 138:
greater than the sum of their parts
Page 139 and 140:
Appendix IV. Prior Scientific Paper
Page 141 and 142:
vi - Value of cucurbit extract comp
Page 143 and 144:
Methods The assessment of BAT and M
Page 145 and 146:
surfaces - cotton cloth, plastic sh
Page 147 and 148:
Table IV.B.4. Mean total catches (N
Page 149 and 150:
Table IV.B.9. Catches over four to
Page 151 and 152:
Many improvements may be made to th
Page 153 and 154:
economic damage per fly will be gre
Page 155 and 156:
Table IV.C.1. Fruit infestation ass
Page 157 and 158:
factors (ecoregion, year, season, w
Page 159 and 160:
Infestation (%) ANOVA F Tree Mean 3
Page 161 and 162:
Appendix V. References Afzal, M, Ma
Page 163 and 164: Jalaluddin, SM, Natarajan, K, Sadak
Page 165 and 166: cucurbitae Coquillett) in cucumber.
Page 167 and 168: Sharma, VP, Lal, OP, Rohidas, SB, P
Page 169 and 170: Project Integrated Management of Fr
Page 171 and 172: Section 1: Indian Fruit and Vegetab
Page 173 and 174: Section 2: Indian Production of Fru
Page 175 and 176: Section 4: Fruit Fly Species Report
Page 177 and 178: 56 Gastrozona balioptera 57 G. fasc
Page 179 and 180: 114 P. tetrica 115 Indacilira basiv
Page 181 and 182: Section 5: Hosts of Tephritid Fruit
Page 183 and 184: 56 Cucumis melo var. utilissimus Cu
Page 185 and 186: 118 Physalis peruviana Solanaceae C
Page 187 and 188: Bactrocera sp. T. dioica Mondouri,
Page 189 and 190: B. cucurbitae Mogekai Karnataka Kum
Page 191 and 192: B. carambolae Andaman Islands Ranga
Page 193 and 194: Jujube 20 20 60 40 N Gujarat xi,xii
Page 195 and 196: Mango 9.8 9.8 10 10 10 N Kanpur vi
Page 197 and 198: Cucumber 6.2 6.2 6 6 6 S South Anda
Page 199 and 200: Section 8: Population Dynamics and
Page 201 and 202: B. dorsalis Mango Kanpur, Uttar Pra
Page 203 and 204: C. vesuviana Jujube Haryana Lakra a
Page 205 and 206: Meridarchis scyrodes, Carpomyia ves
Page 207 and 208: B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd Thakur e
Page 209 and 210: B. cucurbitae C melo, C callosus B.
Page 211 and 212: B. correcta Guava Jalaluddin and 19
Page 213: B. cucurbitae 82 cucurbits Nath et
Page 217 and 218: B. cucurbitae Gowda et al. 1979 An
Page 219 and 220: B. cucurbitae Kaur and Srivastava B
Page 221 and 222: B. dorsalis Srivastava et al. 1989
Page 223 and 224: B. dorsalis Prasad and Sethi 1981 T
Page 225 and 226: Section 12: Natural Enemies Host En
Page 227 and 228: Section 13: Cultural Controls Fly H
Page 229 and 230: B. cucurbitae Bhagat and Koul B. cu
Page 231 and 232: B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd Gupta an
Page 233 and 234: B. zonata Peach Himachal Pradesh B.
Page 235 and 236: B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd Mote 197
Page 237 and 238: B. cucurbitae Ccumber, ridge gourd
Page 239 and 240: Zaprionus paravittiger [Z. indianus
Page 241 and 242: B. zonata Apple, peach Solan, Himac
Page 243 and 244: B. cucurbitae B. cucurbitae B. cucu
Page 245 and 246: Section 16: Pheromone and Colour Lu
Page 247 and 248: B. dorsalis Mango Pantnagar Uttar P
Page 249 and 250: B. cucurbitae Snake gourd Banglades
Page 251 and 252: Bagle, B.G. Prasad, V.G. 1983 Effec
Page 253 and 254: Borah, S.R. Dutta, S.K. 1997 Infest
Page 255 and 256: Drew, R.A.I. Raghu, S. 2002 The fru
Page 257 and 258: Gupta, K. Anand, M. 2002 Effect of
Page 259 and 260: Kapoor, V.C. Grewal, J.S. Agarwal,
Page 261 and 262: KrishnaMoorthy, P.N. Srinivasan, K.
Page 263 and 264: Nair, S. Thomas, J. 2001 Ovipositio
Page 265 and 266:
Patel, R.K. Patel, C.B. 1998 Biolog
Page 267 and 268:
Rahman, S Singh, S.P.N. Agarwal, M.
Page 269 and 270:
Shivarkar, D.T. Dumbre, R.B. 1985 B
Page 271 and 272:
Srivastava, B.G. Pant, N.C. Chaudhr
Page 273 and 274:
Wadhwani, K. Khan, N.H. 1983 Effect
Page 275 and 276:
Anon. 1994 Distribution Maps of Pes
Page 277 and 278:
Anon. 1998 Population dynamics of B
show all

“Key Informant Survey” of Production, Value, Losses and ... - DfID

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?