Research Article | Published: 01 September 2002

Chemical Screening of Different Clones of Tectona Grandis in Relation to Resistance Against their Key Defoliators

Avinash Jain, A. K. Singh, Samar Kumar Banerjee and P. K. Shukla

Indian Journal of Forestry | Volume: 25 | Issue: 3 | Page No. 254-273 | 2002
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54207/bsmps1000-2002-3009D4 | Cite this article

Abstract

Teak (Tectona grandis L.f.) is a valuable commercial timber species which always faces a serious threat from leaf skeletonizer, Eutectona machaeralis and defoliator, Hyblaea puera. Selection of resistant teak clones on the basis of foliar defensive biochemicals is a very new approach of controlling this problem. In the studies carried out, 167 clones of teak belonging to ten states of India, introduced and planted during the years 1979-84 at National Teak Germ Plasm Bank, Chandrapur (Maharashtra) were considered as experimental host plants to evaluate resistant teak clones. In field, quantitative assessment of the severity of the damage was made by rating infested leaves visually on the basis of percentage of affected leaves individually in all four directions of all the clones. On the basis of visual observations, the clones were categorized into 9 groups, viz., most resistant, highly resistant, resistant, moderately resistant, least resistant, moderately susceptible, susceptible, highly susceptible and most susceptible. Some clones from each category were randomly selected for further confirmation of resistance against leaf skeletonizer and defoliator. In laboratory, feeding bioassay through no-choice and choice tests was carried out. Chemical screening of the contributory leaves of respective clones was also done. On the basis of data on leaf area consumed and foliar constituents, some resistant teak clones were identified.

The inference drawn can be used as a screening criterion for selection of teak clones resistant to E. machaeralis and H. puera to large-scale plantation programmes.

Keywords

Access Options

250/-

Buy Full Access in HTML Format

Instant access to the full article.

References

1. Anim, P. W. and Upadhyaya, A. K. (1976). Occurrence of defoliator, Hyblaea puera (Hyblaeidae : Lepidoptera) on fountain tree, Spathodea campanulata (Bignoniaceae). Indian Forester, 102 (5): 306-311.

Google Scholar

2. Beeson, C.F.C. (1941). The ecology and control of forest insects of India and neighbouring countries. Vasant Press, Dehradun, pp. 1007.

Google Scholar

3. Coulson, H.G. (1979). Population dynamics of bark beetles. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 24 : 217-246.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.24.010179.002221

Google Scholar

4. Dale, D. (1988). Plant-mediated effects of soil mineral stresses on insects. In : E.A. Heinrichs (Edt.) Plant Stress-Insect Interactions. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 35-110.

Google Scholar

5. Gora, V.; Konig, J. and Lunderstadt, J. (1994). Physiological defense reactions of young beech trees (Fagus sylvatica) to attack by Phyllaphis fagi. For. Eco. Manag., 70 : 1-3, 245-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(94)90090-6

Google Scholar

6. Holtzer, T.O.; Archer , T.L. and Norman, J.M. (1988). Host plant suitability in relation to water stress. In : E.A. Heinrichs (Edt.). Plant Stress-Insect Interactions. John Wiley & Sons, New York. pp. 111-137.

Google Scholar

7. Jackson, M.L. (1973). Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall, New Delhi.

Google Scholar

8. Jain, A.; Roychoudhury, N. and Joshi, K.C. (1995). Population outbreak of defoliator,  Hyblaea puera Cramer and skeletonizer, Eutectona machaeralis Walker on teak, in relation to leaf chemical status. Myforest, 31 (1) : 49-54.

Google Scholar

9. Jayaraj, S. (1967). Effect of leafhopper infestation of carbohydrate and nitrogen in castor varieties in relation to their resistance to Empoasca flavescens (F.) (Homoptera : Jassidae). Indian J. exp. Biol.  5 : 156-162.

Google Scholar

10. Jayaraj, S.; Uthamasamy, S. and Parmeswaran, S. (1988). Host plant resistance to insects with reference to biochemical parameters. In : Dynamics of Insect-Plant Interactions (ed. T.N. Ananthakrishnan & A. Raman), New Delhi, pp. 29-44. 

Google Scholar

11. Larsson, S.; Wiren, A.; Lundrgren, L. and Ericsson, T. (1986). Effects of light and nutrient stress on leaf phenolic chemistry in Salix dasyclados and susceptibility to Galerucella lineola (Coleoptera). Oikos., 47 : 2, 205-210. https://doi.org/10.2307/3566047

Google Scholar

12. Malik, C.P. and Srivastava, A.K. (1985). Text Book of Plant Physiology. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, 785 pp.

Google Scholar

13. Mathur, R. N. (1960). Pests of teak and their control. Indian For. Rec., 10 (3) : 43-65.

Google Scholar

14. Matson, W.J. and Scriber, J.M. (1987). Nutritional ecology of insect folivores of woody plants : nitrogen, water, fibre and mineral considerations. In : F. Slansky Jr. and J.G. Rodriguez (Eds.). Nutritional Ecology of Insects, Mites, Spiders and Related Invertebrates. John Wiley & Sons, New York. pp. 105-146.

Google Scholar

15. Mohanadas, K. (1986). A new host recorded for the teak defoliator, Hyblaea puera (Lepidoptera : Hyblaeidae). Curr. Sci., 55 (23) : 1207-1208.

Google Scholar

16. Perrenoud, S. (1976). Contribution to the discussion : The effect of K on insect and mite development. In : Fertilizer Use and Plant Health, pp. 317-319. Intl. Potash Inst., CH-3048 Worblaufen-Bern. Switzerland.

Google Scholar

17. Piper, C.S. (1944). Soil and plant analysis. Interscience Publishers, New York, pp. 368.

Google Scholar

18. Porter, L.J. and Hemingway, R.W. (1989). Significance of the condensed tannins. pp. 3-13. In Maxwel, F.G. & Jennings, P.R. (Eds.) Breeding Plants Resistant to Insects, John Wiley & Sons, New York.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-74075-6_28

Google Scholar

19. Reese, J.C. (1979). Interactions of allelochemicals with nutrients in herbivore food. In : Herbivores : Their interactions with secondary plant metabolites (G.A. Rosenthal and D.H. Janzen, eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 309-330.

Google Scholar

20.  Roychoudhury, N.;  Jain, A. and Joshi, K.C. (1995). Alteration of growth and development in leaf skeletonizer, Eutectona machaeralis Walker, due to variations in teak leaves of different maturity. Indian J. Exp. Biol., 33(3) : 227-229.

Google Scholar

21. Roychoudhury, N. and Joshi, K.C. (1996). Search for natural resistance in teak clones against Eutectona machaeralis Walker (Lepidoptera : Pyralidae). Indian J. For., 19 : 205-213.

Google Scholar

22. Rupa, T.R.; Rao, M.S. and Reddy, K.S. (1993). Positional nutrient status of mulberry (Morus alba L.) leaves. Indian J. Seric., 32(1) : 125-127.

Google Scholar

23. Sadasivam, S. and Manikam, A. (1992). Biochemical Methods for Agricultural University. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.

Google Scholar

24. Uthamasamy, S.; Jayaraj, S. and Subramanian, T.R. (1971). Studies on the varietal  resistance of bhendi, Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) to the leafhopper, Amrasca devastans (Dist.) (Homoptera : Jassidae). South Indian Horticulture., 19 : 53-59.

Google Scholar

25. Vaishampayan, S. M. and Bahadur, A. (1983). Seasonal activity of adults of teak defoliator, Hyblaea puera and teak skeletonizer, Pyrausta machaeralis (Pyralidae : Lepidoptera) monitored by light trap catch. In : Insect Interrelations in Forest and Agro-Ecosystems (eds. P. K. Sen-Sarma, S. K. Kulshrestha and S. K. Sangal). Jugal Kishore,  Dehradun : pp. 137-146.

Google Scholar

About this article

How to cite

Jain, A., Singh, A.K., Banerjee, S.K. and Shukla, P.K., 2002. Chemical Screening of Different Clones of Tectona Grandis in Relation to Resistance Against their Key Defoliators. Indian Journal of Forestry, 25(3), pp.254-273. https://doi.org/10.54207/bsmps1000-2002-3009D4

Publication History

Manuscript Published on 01 September 2002

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: