Cereal Research Communications

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 321–326 | Cite as

Reactions of the different breeding season corns as a function of injury of cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera Hbn.)

  • S. Keszthelyi
  • F. Pál-Fám
  • J. Pozsgai
Addendum — Proceedings of the VIII. Alps-Adria Scientific Workshop, 27 April–2 May 2009, Neum, Bosnia-Herzegovina


The aim of present investigations was the increasing of knowledge of the cotton bollworm’s (Helicoverpa armigera Hbn.) (CB) damages in the different breeding season corns. The damage examinations were made in a 29.2 hectares acreage between Igal and Kazsok villages (Somogy county) on the basis of the flight observation at the end of August 2008. We examined the measure of damages and yield losses based on the collected ears belonging to different breeding season corns (FAO 200–299, FAO 300–399, FAO 400–499, FAO 500–599). The relationship between the breeding season and the damages was examined by variance analysis (one-way anova). The collected samples were examined in analytic laboratory in order to calculate the quantitative alteration of the fundamental in-kernel air dry content values (raw protein, raw fat, starch).

Our results proved the significant increasing of damage percentages (FAO 200–299: 8.66%; FAO 500–599: 15.33%), surface damages (cm2) (P = 0.026) and the calculated weight loss of damaged ears (P=0.014) parallel with the increasing of the breeding season length. We confirmed the “forced maturing” in the case of the earlier hybrids in the consequence of the damage. We recorded a decreasing percentage (correlate to the draw matter) of the starch and the raw fat (average decreasing: starch: 1.72; raw fat: 0.26) as well as the increasing starch loss per one hectare, agreeing with the breeding season length increase (starch loss/one hectare: FAO 200–299: 1.54%; FAO 500–599: 2.72%). We observed the quantitative increasing of the raw protein as a function of CB’s damage too, which can be explained by a physiological response to the biotic stress.


cotton bollworm breeding season of corn damage of ear 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Balogh, P., Takács, J., Nádasy, M., Márton, L. 2005. The effect of the weather ont he light-trap’s data of the cotton bollworm in Hungary. Cer. Res. Commun. 33(2):427–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balogh, P., Nádasy, M., Vörös, G., Tatár, Zs. 2008. Néhány időjárási tényező és a gyapottok-bagolylepke magyarországi előfordulásának összefüggése. Növényvédelem 44(12):597–606.Google Scholar
  3. Csermely, P. 2000. Stresszfehérjék. Sejtjeink ősi védekező mechanizmusa. Vince Kiadó, Budapest.Google Scholar
  4. Firempong, S., Zalucki, M.P. 1989. Host plant selection by Helicoverpa armigera — role of certain plant attributes. Aust. J. Zool. 37(6):675–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fitt, G.P. 1989. The ecology of Heliothis species in relation to agroecosystem. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 34:17–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hamilton J.T., Muirhead, W.A. 1981. Chemical control of Heliothis armigera in sweet corn. Austral. J. Exp. Agric. 21(109):231–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Han, Z.J., Wang, Y.C., Zhang, Q.S., Li, X.C., Li, G.Q. 1999. Dynamics of pyrethroid in a field popultion of Helicoverpa armigera in China. Pestic. Sci. 55(4):462–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Horváth, Z., Fischl, G. 1996. Napraforgómoly és gyapottok-bagolylepke károsítása nyomán fellépő korokozók napraforgó és kukorica növényeken. VI. Keszthelyi Növényvédelmi Fórum, Keszthely (Összefoglaló), 16.Google Scholar
  9. Jallow, M.F.A., Matsumura, M. 2001. Influence of temperature ont he role of developmen of Helicoverpa armigera. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 36(4):427–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Keszthelyi, S., Szabó, T., Kurucsai, P., Nádasy, M., Marczali, Zs. 2007. Damage determination of Western corn rootworm in soil disinfected, continuous corn. VI. Alps-Adria Scientific Workshop, 30 April–4. May, 2007, Obervellach, Austria. Cer. Res. Commun. 35(2):593–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Magyar Szabvány 1977, 1978, 1981. Kémiai vizsgálatok és számítások. Magyar Szabványügyi Hivatal, Budapest.Google Scholar
  12. Molnár, F. 1997. A gyapottok-bagolylepke a hajtatásban. Gyakorlati Agrofórum 8(1):68–69.Google Scholar
  13. Pepó, P. 2006. Improvement of effectiveness in maize breeding. Acta Agronomica Hungarica 54(3):351–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Szeőke, K. 2007. A gyapottok-bagolylepke új kártételi stratégiája. Növényvédelem 43 (9):424.Google Scholar
  15. Szeőke, K., Dulinafka, Gy. 1987. Agyapottok-bagolylepke hazai előfordulása és kártétele csemegekukoricában. Növényvédelem 23(10):433–438.Google Scholar
  16. Tripathi, S.R., Singh, R. (1991): Polpuation dynamics of Helicoverpa armigera. Insect Science and its Application 12(4):367–374.Google Scholar
  17. Widstrom, N.W. (1969): Corn earworm injury to maize as affected by plant density. Agronomy Journal 61(3):464–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zareczky, A., Vörös, G. 1994. Bagolylepke-invázió a kukoricacsövekben. Növényvédelem 30(4):169–172.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Keszthelyi
    • 1
  • F. Pál-Fám
    • 1
  • J. Pozsgai
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Botany and Plant Production, FASUniversity of KaposvárKaposvárHungary

Personalised recommendations