International Journal of Horticulture, 2017,Vol.7, No.2, 7-19
11
Table 5 Feeding dynamics of fourth instar larvae of
Epilachna vigintioctopunctata
Fab. on
Solanum melongena
,
S. nigrum
and
Momordica cochinchinensis
leaves
Parameters
S. melongena
S. nigrum
M. cochinchinensis
F
(
df
=2,6)
P
GR (mg/day)
0.877 ±0.002
a
0.687 ±0.006
b
0.481 ±0.008
c
203.858
0.001
CR (mg/day)
226.658 ±4.320
a
205.619 ±3.148
b
191.306 ±3.025
bc
25.145
0.001
RGR (mg/day)
7.636 ±0.239
a
5.782 ±0.074
b
3.913 ±0.069
c
154.696
0.001
CI (mg/day)
1972.422 ±50.667
a
1730.784 ±31.776
b
1556.563 ±23.853
c
31.559
0.001
ER (mg/day)
59.871 ±1.797
ab
54.651 ±0.960
a
49.525 ±0.768
ac
16.938
0.003
HCR (mg/day)
2032.293 ±52.452
a
1785.435 ±32.736
b
1606.089 ±24.620
c
31.018
0.001
AD (%)
96.965 ±0.017
a
96.842 ±0.003
b
96.818 ±0.002
bc
62.695
0.001
ECI (%)
0.387 ±0.002
a
0.334 ±0.003
b
0.251 ±0.002
c
817.647
0.001
ECD (%)
0.399 ±0.002
a
0.345 ±0.003
b
0.260 ±0.002
c
796.739
0.001
HUE (%)
97.055 ±0.016
a
96.939 ±0.003
b
96.916 ±0.002
bc
62.526
0.001
Note: Different letters with in the rows indicate the means (Mean ± SE of 3 observations) are significantly different (
P
< 0.05,
Tukey’s HSD) with
F
and
P
values (ANOVA) while comparing one type of host plant with the other
Table 6 Feeding dynamics of adult stage of
Epilachna vigintioctopunctata
Fab. on
Solanum melongena
,
S. nigrum
and
Momordica
cochinchinensis
leaves
Parameters
S. melongena
S. nigrum
M. cochinchinensis
F
(
df
=2,6)
P
GR (mg/day)
0.043 ±0.001
a
0.041 ±0.001
ab
0.045 ±0.001
ac
10.307
0.010
CR (mg/day)
16.708 ±0.045
a
19.885 ±0.136
b
20.398 ±0.173
bc
237.405
0.001
RGR (mg/day)
0.544 ±0.006
a
0.498 ±0.009
a
0.518 ±0.019
a
3.261
0.110
CI (mg/day)
209.971 ±1.937
a
243.932 ±2.422
b
233.935 ±5.037
bc
26.118
0.001
ER (mg/day)
8.446 ±0.092
a
10.214 ±1.432
a
10.492 ±0.175
a
1.769
0.249
HCR (mg/day)
218.416 ±2.028
a
254.146 ±3.110
b
244.427 ±5.212
bc
25.001
0.001
AD (%)
95.978 ±0.008
a
95.815 ±0.577
a
95.514 ±0.022
a
0.498
0.631
ECI (%)
0.259 ±0.003
a
0.204 ±0.002
b
0.221 ±0.003
c
106.261
0.001
ECD (%)
0.270 ±0.003
a
0.213 ±0.002
b
0.232 ±0.003
c
118.449
0.001
HUE (%)
96.133 ±0.007
a
95.989 ±0.529
a
95.707 ±0.20
a
0.505
0.627
Note: Different letters with in the rows indicate the means (Mean ± SE of 3 observations) are significantly different (
P
< 0.05,
Tukey’s HSD) with
F
and
P
values (ANOVA) while comparing one type of host plant with the other
The accumulated survivability throughout the developmental stages were significantly (P< 0.05) greatest when the
insects fed with
S. melongena
leaves instead of
S. nigrum
and
M. cochinchinensis
leaves (Table 7).The adult
emergence was significantly higher (
F
2,6
=22.710,
P
< 0.005) on
S. melongena
leaves (48.860 ±2.416%) relative to
S. nigrum
(43.598 ±0.860%) and
M. cochinchinensis
(32.984 ±1.436%) leaves (Table 7). The fecundity was
always significantly higher (
F
2,6
=163.500,
P
< 0.0001) on
S. melongena
leaves (140.667 ±1.333 eggs/female) than
S. nigrum
(125.333 ±1.764 eggs/female) and
M. cochinchinensis
(104.00 ±1.155 eggs/female) (Figure 3). The
growth index (GI) of
E. Vigintioctopunctata
was also higher on
S. Melongena
(3.624) than on
S. nigrum
and
M.
cochinchinensis
(3.136 and 2.581, respectively) (Figure 4).
Table 7 Accumulated Survivality (%) of
Epilachna vigintioctopunctata
Fab. on
Solanum melongena
,
S. nigrum
and
Momordica
cochinchinensis
leaves
Developmental stages
S. melongena
S. nigrum
M. cochinchinensis
F
(
df
=2,6)
P
Hatchability
90.556 ±1.997
a
88.535 ±1.102
a
85.530 ±2.169
a
1.937
0.224
First instar
80.166 ±3.763
a
79.793 ±0.283
a
76.584 ±1.048
a
0.758
0.509
Second instar
74.954 ±3.827
a
73.408 ±0.218
a
68.890 ±1.117
a
1.868
0.234
Third instar
69.239 ±2.337
a
66.476 ±0.476
a
57.682 ±0.470
b
18.489
0.003
Fourth instar
63.799 ±2.890
a
58.242 ±0.191
a
49.994 ±0.554
b
16.650
0.004
ERR
56.661 ±1.508
a
51.038 ±1.453
a
41.326 ±1.037
b
33.072
0.001
Adult emergence
48.860 ±2.416
a
43.598 ±0.860
a
32.984 ±1.436
b
22.710
0.002
Note: Different letters with in the rows indicate the means (Mean ± SE of 3 observations) are significantly different (
P
< 0.05,
Tukey’s HSD) with
F
and
P
values (ANOVA) while comparing one type of host plant with the other
