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 (inoculum access period, or the period during which a vector pierces cells and infects plant with virus inoculum), takes 32 min to 24 hours. In contrast, Ber et al. (1990), reported an AAP of 48 hours, and that infected plants take a maximum of 15 - 29 days to show symptoms. However, it was found that there is a need for a pre-and postacquisition fasting period of at least 1 - 2 hours to enhance transmission efficiency. Cohen and Nitzany (1966) reported a latent period of 21 hours before the vector transmits the virus. Caciagli et al. (1995) found that the latent period is 17 - 20 days. They also established that the virus persists in the vector for 20 days. These scientists seem to agree that whitefly transmission is persistent, i.e. able to infect plants with virus inoculum all the time, whereas inoculum is not carried over to their offsprings. Furthermore, Caciagli et al. (1995) found that virus acquisition is more efficient than inoculation, and females are more efficient in transmission than males, while nymphs are as efficient as adults in acquiring the virus, but of little epidemiological importance because of being immobile. Rataul and Brar (1989) determined transmission efficiency by use of χ² analysis of data from number of plants infected and expected number of plants to be infected. Other methods of analysing transmission are through calculating the probability of disease transmission (Rataul and Brar, 1989) by: p = 1-Q ¹/k (5), whereby p is probability of disease transmission by single vector, Q is observed fraction of non-infected plants; and k is number of insects used per plant. Furthermore, the effect of IAP on transmission by a single vector is determined by expressing the growth rate of increase in infection, which is expressed as (dp/dt), and is said to increase linearly with the proportion of uninfective insects. 38
Incidence, distribution and characteristics of major tomato leaf curl and mosaic virus diseases 2.1.3.1.1.1 Whitefly Vector Population in the Agro-ecosystem In many parts of Africa, seasonal contrasts in rainfall influence pest populations (Elkinton, 1993). Rainfall provides adequate moisture for growth of plant hosts, but also affects the success or failure of oviposition and egg development of the vector (Duffus, 1992). Nono Womdim et al. (1996) reported that in Tanzania, whitefly population size changed with season, the major variables being rainfall and temperature. Similar results were reported for Egypt (Moustafa, 1991). Riley and Wolfenbarger (1993) recorded a similar pattern in Bemisia tabaci populations, which change from year to year and season to season. Natural enemies and pesticides were also found to affect whitefly populations. Riley et al. (1995) reported that natural enemies and agricultural pesticides, in addition to climatic factors influence whitefly population dynamics. Furthermore, Baumgartner and Yano (1990) stressed the role of natural enemies. It was established that the use of pesticides reduces populations of natural enemies, and subsequently enhances whitefly population growth, while the possibility for whitefly resistance to pesticides was not ruled out (Duffus, 1995). Another factor influencing the development of whitefly vector populations is intensified agricultural practices. In the Americas, international transport of plant materials introduced new B. tabaci biotypes into the ecosystem (Duffus, 1992; Polston and Anderson, 1997). On the other hand, plant hosts already in the ecosystem do also affect whitefly population dynamics. Legg (1996), while working with whiteflies on cassava, found that B. tabaci population growth on cassava, sweet potato and cotton host plants differed from each other. He observed that there were variable establishment success levels on individual crops. B. tabaci survived better on cotton than on any other host (Legg, 1996; Byrne et al., 1990; Von Arx et al., 1983). Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) was also reported to be a very good host for B. tabaci (Byrne et al., 1990). It was further observed that there were variable establishment success levels on individual crops. It was further observed that as whiteflies migrate from one host to another, their population increases on the new host as 39
- Page 12 and 13: ix 9 Consequently, our findings con
- Page 14 and 15: SAMENVATTING Tomaat is een economis
- Page 16 and 17: xiii 13 Beide genhomologie percenta
- Page 18 and 19: xv 15 dit onderzoek geven ook aan d
- Page 20 and 21: LIST OF TABLES xvii 17 Table Page 1
- Page 22 and 23: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xix 19 A
- Page 24 and 25: Abbreviation Word in full PCR Polym
- Page 26 and 27: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 28 and 29: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 30 and 31: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 32 and 33: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 34 and 35: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 36 and 37: Table 2.1: The orthography of some
- Page 38 and 39: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 40 and 41: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 42 and 43: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 44 and 45: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 46 and 47: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 48 and 49: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 50 and 51: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 52 and 53: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 54 and 55: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 56 and 57: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 58 and 59: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 60 and 61: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 64 and 65: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 66 and 67: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 68 and 69: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 70 and 71: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 72 and 73: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 74 and 75: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 76 and 77: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 78 and 79: A B Incidence, distribution and cha
- Page 80 and 81: A B Incidence, distribution and cha
- Page 82 and 83: A Incidence, distribution and chara
- Page 84 and 85: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 86 and 87: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 88 and 89: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 90 and 91: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 92 and 93: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 94 and 95: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 96 and 97: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 98 and 99: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 100 and 101: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 102 and 103: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 104 and 105: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 106 and 107: Isolate IG1 Incidence, distribution
- Page 108 and 109: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 110 and 111: 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<br />
2.1.3.1.1.1 Whitefly Vector Population in the Agro-ecosystem<br />
In many parts <strong>of</strong> Africa, seasonal contrasts in rainfall influence pest populations<br />
(Elkinton, 1993). Rainfall provides adequate moisture for growth <strong>of</strong> plant hosts, but also<br />
affects the success or failure <strong>of</strong> oviposition <strong>and</strong> egg development <strong>of</strong> the vector (Duffus,<br />
1992).<br />
Nono Womdim et al. (1996) reported that in Tanzania, whitefly population size changed<br />
with season, the major variables being rainfall <strong>and</strong> temperature. Similar results were<br />
reported for Egypt (Moustafa, 1991). Riley <strong>and</strong> Wolfenbarger (1993) recorded a similar<br />
pattern in Bemisia tabaci populations, which change from year to year <strong>and</strong> season to<br />
season. Natural enemies <strong>and</strong> pesticides were also found to affect whitefly populations.<br />
Riley et al. (1995) reported that natural enemies <strong>and</strong> agricultural pesticides, in addition to<br />
climatic factors influence whitefly population dynamics. Furthermore, Baumgartner <strong>and</strong><br />
Yano (1990) stressed the role <strong>of</strong> natural enemies. It was established that the use <strong>of</strong><br />
pesticides reduces populations <strong>of</strong> natural enemies, <strong>and</strong> subsequently enhances whitefly<br />
population growth, while the possibility for whitefly resistance to pesticides was not<br />
ruled out (Duffus, 1995). Another factor influencing the development <strong>of</strong> whitefly vector<br />
populations is intensified agricultural practices.<br />
In the Americas, international transport <strong>of</strong> plant materials introduced new B. tabaci<br />
biotypes into the ecosystem (Duffus, 1992; Polston <strong>and</strong> Anderson, 1997). On the other<br />
h<strong>and</strong>, plant hosts already in the ecosystem do also affect whitefly population dynamics.<br />
Legg (1996), while working with whiteflies on cassava, found that B. tabaci population<br />
growth on cassava, sweet potato <strong>and</strong> cotton host plants differed from each other. He<br />
observed that there were variable establishment success levels on individual crops. B.<br />
tabaci survived better on cotton than on any other host (Legg, 1996; Byrne et al., 1990;<br />
Von Arx et al., 1983). Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) was also reported to be a very good host<br />
for B. tabaci (Byrne et al., 1990). It was further observed that there were variable<br />
establishment success levels on individual crops. It was further observed that as<br />
whiteflies migrate from one host to another, their population increases on the new host as<br />
39