Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Resistance of Tomato Varieties to the Tomato Russet Mite, Aculops Lycopersici (Massee) (Acarina: Eriophyidae)

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There were significant differences in the level of susceptibility among the 12 varieties which were screened for resistance to A. lycopersici Pronounced tolerance to leaf damage was recorded on varieties Early Stone Improved and Beauty. Oxheart and Bonny Best both of which had comparatively lower mite densities were highly susceptible. Flower bud formation was not significantly affected by the mite damage. However, the number of dead flowers and flower buds on infested plants was significantly more than on protected ones.

Russetting of young fruits due to mite damage differed significantly among the varieties tested, and was positively correlated with moisture content of young fruits. The least and most affected varieties were Beauty and Red Cloud respectively. The percentage yield loss was highest on Hybrid Beefmaster and Oxheart and lowest on Roma and Money Maker.

Résumé

Des différences significatives existent quant au degré de sensibilité des variétés de tomate testées pour la resistance à A. lycopersici Une tolérance remarquable aux dégâts foliaires a été observée sur les variétés “Early Stone Improved”, et “Beauty”. “Oxheart” et “Bonny” sur lesquelles on observe des densités faibles de mites sont aussi sensibles. La formation de boutons floraux n’est pas affectée de façon significative par les dégâts dus aux mites. Cependant, le nombre de fleurs et de boutons floraux dessechés sur les plantes infestées est significativement plus important que sur celles protegées. Le bruinissement des jeunes fruits dû aux dégâts des mites est significativement différent entre les variétés testées; et il existe une corrélation positive avec le taux d’humidité des jeunes fruits. Les variétés les plus et moins affectées sont “Beauty” et “Red Cloud” respectivement. Le pourcentage de perte en rendement est le plus élevé sur l’hybride “Beef Master” et “Oxheart” alors qu’il est le plus bas sur “Roma” et “Money Maker”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anonymous (1975) Annual Report, Ministry of Agriculture, Central Province, Kenya, p. 41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous (1976) Annual Report, Ministry of Agriculture, Central Province, Kenya, p. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous (1984) Horticultural Crops. Development Authority Export Statistics of figures of fresh fruits, vegetables and cut flowers by air from Kenya to various destinations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Consenza G. W. and Green H. B. (1979) Behaviour of the tomato fruitworm, Heliothis zea (Boddie) on susceptible and resistant lines of processing tomatoes. Hon. Science 14, 171–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emden H. F. van (1966) Plant insect relationships and pest control. World Rev. Pest. Cont. 5, 115–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentile A. G., Webb E. R. and Stoner A. K. (1969) Lycopersicon and Solanum spp. resistant to the carmine and the two spotted spider mite. Econ. Entomol. 61, 835–836.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert J. C., Chinn J. T. and Tanka J. (1966) Spider mite tolerance in multiple disease resistant commercial type tomatoes. Proc. Am. Hort. Sci. 89, 559–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horber E. (1972) Plant resistance to insects. Agric. Sci. Rev. 10, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamau A. W. (1977) Effect of Eriophyid mite, Aculops lycopersici (Massee) (Acarina: Eriophyidae) on tomato in Kenya. The Entomol. News No. 5, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell F. G. (1972) Host plant resistance to insects nutritional and pest management relationships in insect and mite nutrition (Edited by Rodriguez J. G.), pp. 599–609. North-Holland Amsterdam.

  • Mwakha E. (1976) Tomatoes. In Hort. Handbk. Vol. 2. The Editorial Committee of the National Horticultural Research Station, Thika, Kenya.

    Google Scholar 

  • Painter R.H. (1951) Insect Resistance in Crop Plants. The Macmillan Co., New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez J. G., Knavel D. E. and Aina O. J. (1972) Studies of resistance of tomatoes to mites. J. Econ. Entomol. 65, 51–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens A. M. (1978) Breeding tomatoes for processing. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Tropical Tomato. 23-27 October 1978. AVRDC publication, pp. 201–213.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Egerton University, CMRT, P. O. Box 677, Njoro, Kenya

    A. W. Kamau

  2. Department of Zoology, Kenyatta University, P. O. Box 43844, Nairobi, Kenya

    J. M. Mueke

  3. Moi University, P. O. Box 3900, Eldoret, Kenya

    B. M. Khaemba

Authors
  1. A. W. Kamau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. M. Mueke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. M. Khaemba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kamau, A.W., Mueke, J.M. & Khaemba, B.M. Resistance of Tomato Varieties to the Tomato Russet Mite, Aculops Lycopersici (Massee) (Acarina: Eriophyidae). Int J Trop Insect Sci 13, 351–356 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742758400013618

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742758400013618

Key Words

Mots Clés

Search

Navigation