Incidence, Distribution and Characteristics of Major Tomato Leaf ...
Incidence, Distribution and Characteristics of Major Tomato Leaf ... Incidence, Distribution and Characteristics of Major Tomato Leaf ...
Incidence, distribution and characteristics of major tomato leaf curl and mosaic virus diseases 132 tomato plant one week after treatment application. Because of persistent TYLCV transmission by whiteflies, even one whitefly would be enough to raise concern. Uprooting TYLCV-infected plants and dimethoate application treatment were able to contain whitefly populations at the lowest level throughout the experimental season, albeit with minimal difference from plots treated with tomato-bean intercrop plus spraying bean rows with dimethoate (Figure 5.7). This situation could be explained by the fact that by uprooting TYLCV disease symptom-bearing plants (single foci), which are sources of inoculum, secondary infection or polycyclic disease epidemic is eliminated. It was noted that the first planting was preceded by a very dry season, which favoured whitefly population growth, as also observed by Mazyad et al. (1979) and reported by Henneberry and Castle (2001). It is also worth noting that March to July rains are usually heavier than August to December rains. For trial II (Figure 5.8), the trend was indicative of more favourable conditions for whitefly infestation. As such, treatment effect was noticeable after the second week. Furthermore, a less precise trend was observed in trial III (Figure 5.9) with limited treatment effects on whitefly populations, which could have been due to more frequent rainfall, as evidenced in Figure 5.3 and 5.6. However, within the first six weeks of November 1999 to February 2000 experimental period, whitefly populations rose drastically at two incidences, especially for the control monocrop. For monocrop plots 4 and 5 sprayed with dimethoate, the rise in whitefly populations was evident between the third to the sixth week, a situation similar to what is expected to happen when natural enemies are killed or when pests develop resistance to pesticides, but also the attractive vegetative nature of tomato plants at this stage. A similar trend was also observed, to a lesser degree, in plots where uprooting and dimethoate were applied, as well as in those with tomato-bean intercrop where bean rows were sprayed with dimethoate insecticide.
Incidence, distribution and characteristics of major tomato leaf curl and mosaic virus diseases 133 Table 5.5: Mean number of whiteflies trapped by Kubwa trap per plant per plot in trial I, II and III (df = 13; F 18, 20; p = 0.001) Trial I (March- July 1999) Trial II (August – Nov. 1999) Trial III ( Nov. 1999 – Feb. 2000) Ranked treatments Whitefly mean count per plot Tomato monocrop x uprooting Tomato monocrop Monocrop x dimethoate Monocrop x uproot x dimethoate Tomato-beans intercrop Intercrop x dimethoate on beans 29 27 23 22 20 20 Ranked treatments Whitefly mean count per plot Tomato monocrop x uprooting Monocrop x dimethoate Intercrop x dimethoate on beans Tomato monocrop Tomato-beans intercrop Monocrop x uproot x dimethoate 0.23 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.04 0.02 Ranked treatments Whitefly mean count per plot Intercrop x dimethoate on beans Monocrop x dimethoate Tomato monocrop x uprooting Tomato monocrop Monocrop x uproot x dimethoate Tomato-beans intercrop SE 0.30 0.30 0.30 CV 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.16
- Page 106 and 107: Isolate IG1 Incidence, distribution
- Page 108 and 109: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 110 and 111: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 112 and 113: 1600 500 700 200 Incidence, distrib
- Page 114 and 115: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 116 and 117: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 118 and 119: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 120 and 121: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 122 and 123: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 124 and 125: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 126 and 127: 1200 1200 (A) IG1 (ToLCV-UG) PAL1v
- Page 128 and 129: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 130 and 131: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 132 and 133: 78 Incidence, distribution and char
- Page 134 and 135: 87 87 Incidence, distribution and c
- Page 136 and 137: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 138 and 139: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 140 and 141: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 142 and 143: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 144 and 145: A A C D Incidence, distribution and
- Page 146 and 147: Opaque and not smeared Translucent
- Page 148 and 149: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 150 and 151: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 152 and 153: Rainfall (cm) Temp. Cº Mean Whitef
- Page 154 and 155: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 158 and 159: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 160 and 161: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 162 and 163: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 164 and 165: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 166 and 167: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 168 and 169: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 170 and 171: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 172 and 173: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 174 and 175: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 176 and 177: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 178 and 179: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 180 and 181: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 182 and 183: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 184 and 185: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 186 and 187: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 188 and 189: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 190 and 191: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 192 and 193: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 194 and 195: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 196 and 197: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 198 and 199: 8 ANNEXES Incidence, distribution a
- Page 200 and 201: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 202 and 203: Table A.1.1 continued Incidence, di
- Page 204 and 205: Incidence, distribution and charact
<strong>Incidence</strong>, distribution <strong>and</strong> characteristics <strong>of</strong> major tomato leaf curl <strong>and</strong> mosaic virus diseases 132<br />
tomato plant one week after treatment application. Because <strong>of</strong> persistent TYLCV<br />
transmission by whiteflies, even one whitefly would be enough to raise concern.<br />
Uprooting TYLCV-infected plants <strong>and</strong> dimethoate application treatment were able to<br />
contain whitefly populations at the lowest level throughout the experimental season,<br />
albeit with minimal difference from plots treated with tomato-bean intercrop plus<br />
spraying bean rows with dimethoate (Figure 5.7). This situation could be explained by<br />
the fact that by uprooting TYLCV disease symptom-bearing plants (single foci),<br />
which are sources <strong>of</strong> inoculum, secondary infection or polycyclic disease epidemic is<br />
eliminated. It was noted that the first planting was preceded by a very dry season,<br />
which favoured whitefly population growth, as also observed by Mazyad et al. (1979)<br />
<strong>and</strong> reported by Henneberry <strong>and</strong> Castle (2001). It is also worth noting that March to<br />
July rains are usually heavier than August to December rains.<br />
For trial II (Figure 5.8), the trend was indicative <strong>of</strong> more favourable conditions for<br />
whitefly infestation. As such, treatment effect was noticeable after the second week.<br />
Furthermore, a less precise trend was observed in trial III (Figure 5.9) with limited<br />
treatment effects on whitefly populations, which could have been due to more<br />
frequent rainfall, as evidenced in Figure 5.3 <strong>and</strong> 5.6. However, within the first six<br />
weeks <strong>of</strong> November 1999 to February 2000 experimental period, whitefly populations<br />
rose drastically at two incidences, especially for the control monocrop. For monocrop<br />
plots 4 <strong>and</strong> 5 sprayed with dimethoate, the rise in whitefly populations was evident<br />
between the third to the sixth week, a situation similar to what is expected to happen<br />
when natural enemies are killed or when pests develop resistance to pesticides, but<br />
also the attractive vegetative nature <strong>of</strong> tomato plants at this stage. A similar trend was<br />
also observed, to a lesser degree, in plots where uprooting <strong>and</strong> dimethoate were<br />
applied, as well as in those with tomato-bean intercrop where bean rows were sprayed<br />
with dimethoate insecticide.