Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

volume 24 issue 1 (march 2004) : 17 - 20

STUDIES ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF TOMATO LEAF CURL GEMINI VIRUS ON TOMATO WITH ITS VECTOR BEMISIA TABACIGENN*

R
R. Ganesha Naik
V
V. Muniyappa
J
John Colvin
1Delfurtment of Plant Pathology, University of Agricultural Sciences, G-KV-K, Bangalbre - 560 065 and Agricultural Research Station, Arsikere - 573 103, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Naik Ganesha R., Muniyappa V., Colvin John (2025). STUDIES ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF TOMATO LEAF CURL GEMINI VIRUS ON TOMATO WITH ITS VECTOR BEMISIA TABACIGENN*. Agricultural Science Digest. 24(1): 17 - 20. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Rate of transmission of ToLCV by B. fabaci from tomato to tomato was 80–100 per cent when single whitefly was used per seedling and survived 24 h after inoculation. Female adults were found to be more efficient (86.66–100%) in transmitting ToLCV than males (26.66–33.33%) when single whitefly per seedling was used. Five adult whiteflies were required for 100 per cent transmission of ToLCV from tomato to tomato, when acquisition and inoculation access periods were 24 h each. The minimum acquisition access and inoculation access periods were 0.10 and 0.20 hours, respectively. A latent period of 6 h was necessary for B. fabaci to became viruliferous.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Brown, J.K. and Bird, J. (1992). Plant Disease, 76: 220-225.
    2. Brown, J.K. and Nelson, M.R. (1988). Plant Disease, 72: 866-869.
    3. Butter, N.S. and Rataul, H.S. (1977). Phytoparasitica, 5: 170-186.
    4. Castellani, E. et al. (1981). AnnalideUa Facolta di ScienceAgrariedeUa. Universita deqli studi TL Torino, 12:145-161.
    5. Cohen, S. and Nitzany, EE (1966). Phytopathology, 56: 1127-1131.
    6. Mandai, B. and Muniyappa, V. (1991). Fitopatologia Brasileira, 16: 260-262:
    7. Mansour, A. and Al-Musa, A. (1992), PI. Pathol., 41: 122-125.
    8. Mathew, AV. and Muniyappa, V. (1991). Fitopatohgia Brasileira, 16: 46-49.
    9. Ramappa, H.K. (1993). Ph.D. Thesis, UAS, Bangalore, 196 pp.
    10. S,aikia, A.K. (1985). Ph.D. Thesis, UAS, Bangalore, 229 pp.
    11. Seetharama Reddy, K. and Yaraguntaiah, R.C. (1981). IndianPhytopath., 34: 310-313
    Published In
    Agricultural Science Digest
    Article Metrics
    Metrics Icon
    0
    Views
    0
    Citations
    Reviewed By
    Share Article
    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      volume 24 issue 1 (march 2004) : 17 - 20

      STUDIES ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF TOMATO LEAF CURL GEMINI VIRUS ON TOMATO WITH ITS VECTOR BEMISIA TABACIGENN*

      R
      R. Ganesha Naik
      V
      V. Muniyappa
      J
      John Colvin
      1Delfurtment of Plant Pathology, University of Agricultural Sciences, G-KV-K, Bangalbre - 560 065 and Agricultural Research Station, Arsikere - 573 103, India

      • Submitted|

      • First Online |

      • doi

      Cite article:- Naik Ganesha R., Muniyappa V., Colvin John (2025). STUDIES ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF TOMATO LEAF CURL GEMINI VIRUS ON TOMATO WITH ITS VECTOR BEMISIA TABACIGENN*. Agricultural Science Digest. 24(1): 17 - 20. doi: .

      ABSTRACT

      Rate of transmission of ToLCV by B. fabaci from tomato to tomato was 80–100 per cent when single whitefly was used per seedling and survived 24 h after inoculation. Female adults were found to be more efficient (86.66–100%) in transmitting ToLCV than males (26.66–33.33%) when single whitefly per seedling was used. Five adult whiteflies were required for 100 per cent transmission of ToLCV from tomato to tomato, when acquisition and inoculation access periods were 24 h each. The minimum acquisition access and inoculation access periods were 0.10 and 0.20 hours, respectively. A latent period of 6 h was necessary for B. fabaci to became viruliferous.

      KEYWORDS

        REFERENCES

        1. Brown, J.K. and Bird, J. (1992). Plant Disease, 76: 220-225.
        2. Brown, J.K. and Nelson, M.R. (1988). Plant Disease, 72: 866-869.
        3. Butter, N.S. and Rataul, H.S. (1977). Phytoparasitica, 5: 170-186.
        4. Castellani, E. et al. (1981). AnnalideUa Facolta di ScienceAgrariedeUa. Universita deqli studi TL Torino, 12:145-161.
        5. Cohen, S. and Nitzany, EE (1966). Phytopathology, 56: 1127-1131.
        6. Mandai, B. and Muniyappa, V. (1991). Fitopatologia Brasileira, 16: 260-262:
        7. Mansour, A. and Al-Musa, A. (1992), PI. Pathol., 41: 122-125.
        8. Mathew, AV. and Muniyappa, V. (1991). Fitopatohgia Brasileira, 16: 46-49.
        9. Ramappa, H.K. (1993). Ph.D. Thesis, UAS, Bangalore, 196 pp.
        10. S,aikia, A.K. (1985). Ph.D. Thesis, UAS, Bangalore, 229 pp.
        11. Seetharama Reddy, K. and Yaraguntaiah, R.C. (1981). IndianPhytopath., 34: 310-313
        In this Article
          Contact us
          Follow us
          Published In
          Agricultural Science Digest

          Editorial Board

          View all (0)