Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-glrdx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T04:42:52.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Susceptibility of two Cocoa Progenies to Attack by Insect Species

I—Proportion of Trees Infested

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

M. Bigger
M. Bigger
Affiliation:
Cocoa Research Institute, P.O. Box 8, Tafo, Ghana
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Two cocoa progenies, T85/799×T17/359 and E1:C43/291×T63/967 (Series IIB hybrid), were compared for degree of infestation by 17 insect species comprising a Coccid, an Aphis, a Mirid and six ants. A significantly greater proportion of trees of the second variety was infested by the mealybugs Planococcus citri Risso and Pseudococcus hargreavesi Laing, by the Lecaniid scale Gascardia sp. nr. zonatus Newst., by the aphis Toxoptera aurantii Boys, by attendant ants Camponotus spp., and Crematogaster spp., and by the ant Polyrhachis laboriosa F. Smith. Because of differences in habitat requirement between the four Hemiptera, it is postulated that it is more likely that the response is due to a physiological difference between the two progenies than to a purely environmental difference.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , July 1975 , pp. 187 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Anon. (1950). Rep. W. Afr. Cacao Res. Inst. 1948–1949, 27.Google Scholar
Anon. (1952). Rep. W. Afr. Cacao Res. Inst. 1950–1951, 40.Google Scholar
Anon. (1953). Rep. W. Afr. Cacao Res. Inst. 1951–1952, 29.Google Scholar
Bigger, M. (1972). P.A.N.S. 18, 61.Google Scholar
Decker, F. E. (1954). Rep. W. Afr. Cacao Res. Inst. 1953–1954, 31.Google Scholar
Decker, F. E. (1955). Rep. W. Afr. Cocoa Res. Inst. 1954–1955, 49.Google Scholar
Donald, R. G. (1953). Rep. W. Afr. Cacao Res. Inst. 1952–1953, 23.Google Scholar
Fennah, R. G. (1959). I.C.T.A. Rept. on Cacao Res. Trinidad 1957–1958, 18.Google Scholar
Hanna, A. D., Judenko, E. & Heatherington, W. (1955), Bull. ent. Res. 46, 669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, J. (1952). Nature Lond. 169, 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roivainen, O. H. (1969). Rep. Cocoa Res. Inst., Ghana 1967–1968, 43Google Scholar
Rojter, S., Bonney, J. K. & Boafo, E. O. (1966). Rep. Cocoa Res. Inst., Ghana 1963–1965, 29.Google Scholar
Rojter, S., Bonney, J. K., Boafo, E. O. & Dakwa, J. T. (1968). Rep. Cocoa Res. Inst., Ghana 1965–1966, 31.Google Scholar