Cucumis sativus Genotypes Resistance to Dacus ciliatus (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• M. Paydar ¹
• N. MoeiniNaghadeh ²
• F. Jalilian ³
• A.A. Zamani ⁴

¹ Ph.D. Student, Department of Plant Protection, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Razi University, Kermanshah

² Assistant Professor Department of Plant Protection, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Razi University, Kermanshah

³ Assistant Professor, Plant Protection Research Department, Kermanshah Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Kermanshah, IRAN

⁴ Associate Professor Department of Plant Protection, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Razi University, Kermanshah

10.22067/jpp.2020.32805.0

Abstract

 
Introduction: Cucumber, Cucumis sativus is a widely cultivated plant in the Cucurbitaceae family, which is used as a vegetable. Various pests at different stages of growth cause economic damage to it. Lesser pumpkin fly, Dacus ciliatus Loew (Diptera: Tephritidae) could be considered as one of the most important pests of cucurbits worldwide, which direct feeding of larva on fruit making it unusable. Farmers often spray their fields with various pesticides and in some cases is not very effective. Owing to many problems in the chemical control of fruit flies, using resistant plants is one of the most important components in integrated pest management. Host plant resistance is an important component for the management of lesser pumpkin fly, due to difficulties associated with its chemical and biological control. Resistant genotypes can be used to manage this pest.
Material and Methods: Seeds were sown in 2018 with ten replicates (blocks) for each genotype following a completely randomized block design. The area of each bed was 4 m × 4 m and the plant-to-plant distance was maintained at 50 cm with a drip irrigation system. All the recommended agronomic practices (e.g. weeding, fertilization, hoeing, etc.) were performed equally in each experimental bed. The infested fruits were sorted and the percent fruit infestation was calculated. Different genotypes by degree of infection into completely resistant (no contamination), very resistant (1-10%), resistant (11-20%), relatively resistant (21-50%), susceptible (51-75%) and high susceptible (100-75%) were sorted. In this experiment, morphological and biochemical characteristics related to resistance were measured in six different genotypes of cucumber (Hayek, Surina, Maximus, Kish, Armenian cucumber, and a local genotype of Kermanshah). The effect of these traits on fruit infestation and larval density was determined. Ten fresh fruits were selected from each genotype and fruit length, fruit diameter, fruit rind thickness, and rind trichomes density were measured and recorded. To measure biochemical traits two fresh fruits from each genotype were selected and the number of chemical compounds such as phenols, flavonoids, tannins, and total alkaloids was measured.  Percentage of fruit infestation, larval density, biophysical, and biochemical traits values were analyzed by Two-way analysis of variance using SPSS 24 software. The means of significant parameters, among tested genotypes were compared using Tukey’s tests for paired comparisons at the probability level of 5%. Correlations between biophysical and biochemical fruit traits and fruit fly parameters (percent fruit infestation and larval density per fruit) were determined using correlation analysis at the 95% significance level.
Results and Discussion: The larval density per fruit increased with an increase in percentage of fruit infestation and there was a significant positive correlation between percent fruit infestation and larval density per fruit. Among the studied genotypes, Hayek resistant, Surina, Maximus, and Kish moderately resistant, Armenian cucumber susceptible and local genotype was highly susceptible. Phenol content (r = 0.77), tannin (r = 0.89), total alkaloids (r = 0.93) and flavonoids (r = 0.87) were statistically correlated with the percentage of fruit infestation. The percent fruit infestation had significant positive correlation with fruit length (r = 0.55), fruit diameter (r = 0.48), fruit rind trichomes density (r = 0.81) and rind thickness (r = 0.87). Maximum variation in fruit infestation (86.50%) and larval density (63.70%) was explained by the alkaloids. Stepwise regression analysis of our data showed that the highest variation in fruit infestation (75.30) and larval density (61.40) was explained by the trichomes density. Therefore, it can be argued that the reduction of fruit fly infestation on resistant cultivars could be due to physical and biochemical characteristics.
Conclusion: Reduction of fruit fly infestations on resistant genotypes could be due to antibiosis (adverse effect of host plant on the development and reproduction of insect pests, which feed on the resistant plant) and antixenosis (operates by disrupting normal arthropod behavior). Our results suggest that biochemical and biophysical fruit traits could contribute to these mechanisms of resistance. Rind thickness, rind trichomes density, total alkaloids, and tannin were playing an important role in pest resistance. In summary, certain biochemical (tannins, phenols, alkaloids, flavonoid) and biophysical (rind thickness, fruit rind trichomes density, fruit length, fruit diameter) traits were linked to the resistance of cucumber against D. ciliatus and therefore can be used as marker traits in plant breeding programs to select resistant genotypes. By using Hayek genotypes, which have less susceptibility to the lesser pumpkin fly, farmers can produce safe products with less residual insecticides.
 

Keywords

• Biochemical Characteristics
• Cucumber
• Lesser Pumpkin Fly
• Morphological Characteristics

20.1001.1.20084749.1399.34.4.2.6

---

References

1- Arimura G.-I., Matsui K., and Takabayashi J. 2009. Chemical and molecular ecology of herbivore-induced plant volatiles: proximate factors and their ultimate functions. Plant Cell Physiology 50(5): 911-923.

2- Barbehenn R.V., and Constabel C.P. 2011. Tannins in plant–herbivore interactions. Phytochemistry 72(13): 1551-1565.

3- Ebrahimzadeh M., Pourmorad F., and Bekhradnia A. 2008. Iron chelating activity, phenol and flavonoid content of some medicinal plants from Iran. African Biotechnology 7(18): 3188-3192.

4- Gogi M.D., Ashfaq M., Arif M.J., and Khan M.A. 2009. Screening of bitter gourd (Momordica charantia) germplasm for sources of resistance against melon fruit fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae) in Pakistan. International Journal of Agriculture Biology 11: 746-750.

5- Gogi M., Ashfaq M., Arif M., Sarfraz R., and Nawab N.J.C.P. 2010. Investigating phenotypic structures and allelochemical compounds of the fruits of Momordica charantia L. genotypes as sources of resistance against Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett)(Diptera: Tephritidae). 29(8): 884-890.

6- Haldhar S.M., Bhargava R., Choudhary B., Pal G., and Kumar S. 2013. Allelochemical resistance traits of muskmelon (Cucumis melo) against the fruit fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae) in a hot arid region of India. Phytoparasitica 41(4): 473-481.

7- Haldhar S.M., Choudhary B., Bhargava R., and Meena S. 2015a. Antixenotic and allelochemical resistance traits of watermelon against Bactrocera cucurbitae in a hot arid region of India. Florida Entomologist 98: 827-834.

8- Haldhar S.M., Choudhary B., Bhargava R., and Gurjar K. 2015b. Host plant resistance (HPR) traits of ridge gourd (Luffa acutangula (Roxb.) L. against melon fruit fly,(Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett)) in hot arid region of India. Scientia Horticulturae 194: 168-174.

9- Haldhar S., Samadia D., Bhargava R., and Singh D. 2017. Host plant genotypes determine bottom-up effect of Cucumis melo var. callosus against melon fruit fly. Crop protection 98: 157-165.

10- Hanley M.E., Lamont B.B., Fairbanks M.M., and Rafferty C.M. 2007. Plant structural traits and their role in anti-herbivore defence. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution Systematics 8(4): 157-178.

11- Horwitz W. 1975. Official methods of analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists Washington, DC.

12- Javadzadeh M. 2001. Cucurbitacin fly, Iranian Research Institute of plant protection, p. 14. (In Persian)

 13- Muhammad R., Abdul G., and Muhammad A. 2008. Population dynamics of whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) on cultivated crop hosts and their role in regulating its carry-over to cotton. International Journal of Agriculture Biology 10(5): 577-580.

14- Makkar H.P. 2003. Quantification of tannins in tree and shrub foliage: a laboratory manual. Springer Science & Business Media.

15- Mithöfer A., and Boland W. 2012. Plant defense against herbivores: chemical aspects. Annual review of plant biology 63: 431-450.

16- Nath P. 1966. Varietal resistance of gourds to the fruit fly. Indian Journal of Horticulture 23: 69-78.

17- Ode P.J. 2006. Plant chemistry and natural enemy fitness: effects on herbivore and natural enemy interactions. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 51: 163-185.

18- O’connor B.P. 2000. SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, Computers 32(3): 396-402.

19- Panda N., and Khush G. 1995. Host plant resistance to insects. CAB international

20- Pezhman H. 1996. Survey of Biology and Distribution Areas of cucurbitacin fly in Hormozgan Province. Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection.

21- Weems H.V. 2015. Lesser Pumpkin Fly, Ethiopian Fruit Fly, Cucurbit Fly, Dacus ciliatus (Loew)(Insecta: Diptera: Tephritidae). Available in: http://entnemdept.ifas.ufl.edu/creatures (visited 10 September 2018).