Avaliação de cultivares de amendoim para resistência a Spodoptera frugiperda

Abstract

ResumoEste trabalho teve por objetivo identificar cultivares de amendoim com resistência a Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), determinando os graus de resistência por meio da análise univariada e multivariada. Utilizaram-se cultivares de amendoim de hábitos de crescimento ereto (IAC 5, IAC 8112, IAC 22 e IAC Tatu ST) e rasteiro (IAC 503, IAC 505, IAC 147, IAC 125, IAC Caiapó e IAC Runner 886), semeadas em campo. Lagartas de primeiro ínstar foram individualizadas em placas de Petri forradas com papel filtro umedecido e mantidas sob condições controladas de temperatura (25 ± 2 °C), umidade (60 ± 10%) e fotofase (12 horas). Utilizaram-se cinco repetições de dez lagartas (recém-eclodidas), em delineamento inteiramente casualizado. Diariamente, foram fornecidos folíolos novos, lavados com solução de hipoclorito de sódio a 1%. Avaliaram-se a duração (dias), a massa (mg) e a viabilidade (%) dos períodos larval e pupal, a razão sexual, longevidade e fecundidade. Os dados foram submetidos à análise de variância (teste F) e as médias comparadas pelo teste de Tukey (p≤0,05), além da análise de agrupamento e de componentes principais. As cultivares de hábito de crescimento ereto, IAC 22, e rasteiro, IAC Runner 886, foram menos adequadas ao desenvolvimento do inseto, interferindo nas fases larval e pupal de S. frugiperda, demonstrando resistência moderada do tipo antibiose.Palavras-chave: lagarta-do-cartucho, Arachis hypogaea, cultivares, resistência de plantas, análise multivariada. Evaluation of peanut cultivars for resistance to Spodoptera frugiperda AbstractThis study aimed to identify peanut cultivars resistant to Spodoptera frugiperda by determining the degree of resistance through univariate and multivariate analyses. The genetic material under evaluation comprised cultivars of the upright growth habit (IAC 5, IAC 8112, IAC 22 and IAC Tatu ST) and runner growth habit (IAC 503, IAC 505, IAC 147, IAC 125, IAC Caiapó and IAC Runner 886), grown under field conditions. Individual first instar larvae were placed in Petri dishes, on humidified filter paper, and maintained under controlled conditions of temperature (25±2 °C), humidity (60±10%) and photophase (12 hours). Ten newly hatched caterpillars were arranged in a completely randomized design with five replications. New leaves previously washed with 1% sodium hypochlorite were provided daily. The duration (days), weight (mg) and viability (%) of larval and pupal periods, the sex ratio, adult longevity and adult female fecundity were evaluated. All data recorded were submitted to analysis of variance by F test, and treatments were compared by the Tukey test (p≤0.05). Additionally, clustering and principal components analyses were performed. The cultivar IAC 22, of upright growth habit, and Runner IAC 886, of runner growth habit, were the least favorable substrates for the insect development, indicating resistance to S. frugiperda.

Developmental Parameters of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Immature Stages Under Controlled and Standardized Conditions

“…The total larval developmental time (including prepupal period) for S. frugiperda of ~15.1 days (Table 2) is similar to that reported for the same species reared under similar temperatures with suitable artificial diets or suitable host plants (e.g., Pencoe & Marti, 1981;Nieto-Hernández & Llanderal-Cázares, 1982;Pitre & Hogg, 1983;Machado et al, 1985;Castro & Pitre, 1988;Rizzo & La Rossa, 1992;Valverde et al, 1995;Silveira et al, 1997;Giolo et al, 2002;Busato et al, 2005Busato et al, , 2008Campos, Boiça Jr, Jesus, & Godoy 2011;Boregas et al, 2013; Martínez-Martínez, Padilla-Cortes, Jarquín-Lopes, Sánchez-García1, & Cisneros-Palacios, 2015). However, even when exposed to similar temperature conditions, there are reports of significantly longer larval development periods when S. frugiperda are fed less adequate artificial diet (Clavijo et al, 1991;Murúa et al, 2003), less suitable host plants (e.g., Marques, 1932;Leiderman & Sauer, 1953;Pencoe & Marti, 1981Nieto-Hernández & Llanderal-Cázares, 1982;Pitre & Hogg, 1983;Silveira et al, 1997;Botton et al, 1998;Lopes et al, 2008;Campos et al, 2011), or obtained from different collection locations (Giolo et al, 2002, Busato et al, 2005, 2008Boregas et al, 2013). Under similar conditions of suitable food and temperature, such variations are related to genetic variation from different geographic locations or biotypes related to the host plant (e.g., Giolo et al, 2002;Busato et al, 2005;Vélez-Arango, Arango, Villanueva, Aguilera, & Saldamando, 2008;Murúa et al, 2008…”

Resistance of Rice Varieties toSitophilus oryzae(Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

“…Levels of resistance can be classified as immunity, high resistance, moderate resistance, susceptibility, and high susceptibility (Smith 2005;Campos et al 2011). The results presented by hierarchical clustering analysis and adopting the Euclidean distance of 3.0 allowed the formation of 3 distinct groups in terms of resistance levels (Fig.…”

Transference of multiple resistance to peanut through the development of cross-compatible complex hybrids of wild Arachis

“…Moreover, reduction in the growth rate of armyworm caterpillar, when they were fed with complex hybrids leaves, indicates antibiosis resistance. Campos et al (2011) also verified this type of resistance in some peanut cultivars, but with lower intensity. According to Di Bello (2015), the runner peanut cultivars IAC 147 and IAC Runner 886 have antibiosis resistance that affects the larval survival of S. bosquella.…”