Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:47:04.038Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seasonal bionomics of Heliothis armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Terai Belt of northeastern Uttar Pradesh

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

S. R. Tripathi  and
Rajesh Singh
S. R. Tripathi
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Gorakhpur Gorakhpur-273009, India
Rajesh Singh
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Gorakhpur Gorakhpur-273009, India
Get access

Abstract

Heliothis armigera (Hubner) completed five generations in the laboratory, as well as in the field, in a year. The first generation was completed from the first week of December to the fourth week of February, the second generation from the second week of February to first week of April. The third generation from third week of August passing through the extreme summer, the fourth generation during monsoon period and the fifth last generation from the third week of September to the fourth week of November. The seasonal variation in generation time is largely due to extreme variations in ecological factors, temperature (10–45°C), photoperiod (10–14 hr), relative humidity (15–95%) and rainfall. These factors also affect the percentage of pupation, emergence and fecundity of the female moths. Males outnumbered the females in the first, second and fifth generation. The females lived longer than males in all generations.

Résumé

Heliothis armigera (Hubner) comporte 5 générations par an aussi bien en laboratoire que dans les conditions naturelles. La première génération est achevée entre la première semaine de décembre et la quatrième semaine de février, la deuxième entre la seconde semaine de février et la première semaine d'avril. La troisième génération a partir de la troisième semaine d'août et à travers les conditions rudes de l'été; la quatrième génération pendant la période de la mousson et la cinquième et dernière génération, entre la troisième semaine de septembre et la quatrième semaine de novembre. La fluctuation saisonnière quant à la durée d'unegénération est essentiellement liée à la variation extrême dans les facteurs écologiques: température (10–45°C), la photopériode (10–14 h), l'humidité relative (15–95%) et la pluviométrie. Ces facteurs affectent également le pourcentage de pupaison et d'émergence, et la fécondité des femelles. Les mâles surpassent en nombre les femelles dans la première, deuxième, et cinquième génération. Les femelles vivent plus longtemps que les mâles quelque soit la génération consideréd.

Keywords

LepidopteraNoctuidaeHeliothis armigeraseasonal bionomicsLepidopteraNoctuidaeHeliothis armigerabionomie saisonnière
Type
Research Articles
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , August 1993 , pp. 439 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1993

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

REFERENCES

Bhatnagar, V. S. and Davies, J. C. (1978) Factors affecting populations of gram pod borer, Heliothis armigera in the period 1974–77 at Patancheru (A. P.). Bull. Entomol. 10, 52–64.Google Scholar
Browning, T. O. (1981) Ecdysteroid and diapause in pupae of Heliothis armigera. J. Insect Physiol. 27, 715–720.Google Scholar
Butler, G. D., Wilson, L. T. and Henneberry, T. J. (1985) Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae): Initiation of summer diapause. J. Econ. Entomol. 28, 320–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudhary, J. P. and Sharma, S. K. (1981) Biology of gram pod borer Heliothis armigera in Haryana state. Bull. Entomol. 22, 101–112.Google Scholar
Coaker, T. H. (1959) Investigations on Heliothis armigera in Uganda. Bull. Entomol. Res. 50, 487–506.Google Scholar
Fitt, G. P. (1989) The ecology of Heliothis species in relation to agroecosystems. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 34, 17–52.Google Scholar
Henneberry, T. J. and Butler, G. D. (1986) Effect of high temperature on tobacco bud worm (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae): reproduction, diapause and spermatocyst development. J. Earn. Entomol. 79, 410–413.Google Scholar
Ming-Shia, Hsu, Shio, Chang Guang and Fu, Chu Hung (1960) A study on cotton boll worm Heliothis armigera: Act. Oecol. Entomol. Sin. 1, 18–30. Sources: Rev. appl. Entomol. 48, 9.Google Scholar
Megahed, M. M., Ismail, I.I. and Abdel Maksoud, Z. M. (1977) A contribution to the study of biology of the lesser cotton leaf worm, Spodoptem exigua (Hb). Zancoh: (A) Sci. J. Sul. Univ. 3, 1–17.Google Scholar
Nadagauda, D. and Pitre, H. (1983) Development, fecundity and longevity of the tobacco bud worm (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae) fed on soybean, cotton and artificial diet at three temperatures. Environ. Entomol. 12, 582–586.Google Scholar
Patel, R. C., Patel, P. B., and Singh, R. (1964) Mass breeding of Heliothis armigera (Hub.). India J. Entomol. 30, 272–280.Google Scholar
Red, W. (1965) Heliothis armigera (Hub) in Western Tanganyika I. Biology with special reference to the pupal stage. II. Ecology and natural and chemical control. Bull. Entomol. Res. 56, 117–125.Google Scholar
Reed, W. and Pawar, C. S. (1982) Heliothis; a global problem. Proc. Int. workshop Heliothis management, Patancheru, India, 1981. Patancheru, ICRISAT, pp. 9–14.Google Scholar
Singh, H. and Singh, G. (1975) Biological studies on Heliothis armigera in Punjab. Indian J. Entomol. 37, 154–164.Google Scholar
Tripathi, S. R. and Sharma, S. K. (1984) Biology of Heliothis armigera in Terai belt of North eastern Uttar Pradesh. G. it. Entomol. 2, 215–222.Google Scholar
Tripathi, S. R. and Sharma, S. K. (1989) Population dynamics of Heliothis armigera on chick pea. G. it. Entomol. 4, 223–228.Google Scholar
Tripathi, S. R. and Singh, R. (1989) Effect of different pulses on development, growth and reproduction of Heliothis armigera. Insect Sci. Applic. 10, 145–148.Google Scholar
Tripathi, S. R. and Singh, R. (1991) Population dynamics of Helicoverpa armigera. Insect Sci. Applic. 12, 369–374.Google Scholar