|
||||||||||||||||||||||
| Nutritive and DPDNP Ratios of Cucurbits with referenc to Rapidopalpa fovicollis tested in Cucurbitaceous plant | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Paper Id :
16178 Submission Date :
2022-07-11 Acceptance Date :
2022-07-12 Publication Date :
2022-07-15
This is an open-access research paper/article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. For verification of this paper, please visit on
http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/innovation.php#8
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract |
Green plants contain all those nutrients which are needed to meet the nutritional requirements of insects that feed on them ,but plants certainly do not have equal food value for farm animals and for insects, Usefulness of a foodstuff (plant or other biomaterial) depends on its digestibility and availability of different types of nutrient to the animals. Therefore, animal nutritionist uses certain criteria in order to ascertain the nutritive value of foodstuffs. A number of measures of the usefulness of food material are recognized. Each of them serves to evaluate some quality of the foodstuff. These measures include 1. coefficient of digestibility, i.e., the percentage of foodstuff digested, 2. efficiency of conversion, i.e., the foodstuffs converted into body material, and 3. the nutritive ratio, i.e.. the proportion or ratio of digestible non-nitrogenous nutrients (carbohydrates and fats). The digestibility and efficiency conversion of food stuff vary for different host plants.
The nutritive ratio has generally been neglected in Entomology. It is a practical measure because it takes into account the components of the foodstuffs and the digestibility of each. Thus nutritive ratio of one food stuff differs from that of another.
The present work involves studies relating to nutritive and DPDNP ratio of cucurbits with reference to Raphidopalpa fovecollis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keywords | DPDNP Ratio, Nutrient Requirements, Nutritive Ratio, Coefficient of Digestibility, Efficiency of Conversion. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Introduction |
India is predominantly an Agricultural country with over 22 million ha. used for the cultivation of grain legumes, yet the net yield is very less . Vegetables are grown throughout the year and form the main source of proteins, vitamins, minerals and roughage for the population. One of the major constraints in realizing higher yields of vegetable crops is the direct damage caused by insect pests The beetle Raphidopalpa fovecollis Lucas (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in one such pest causes serious damage to cultivated and wild that CUCURBITACEOUS and SOLANACEOUS plants of economic importance. Both the grubs and adults of R. fovecollis cause heavy damage mainly Lagenaria cylindrica, to Cucurbita pepo,Luffa aegyptica, Cucumis utilissmus and Luffa acutanqula. The grubs damage the plants by boring into the roots, underground stems and sometime into the fruits touching the soil. The beetles injure the cotyledons, the flowers and the foliage by biting holes into them. The early sown Cucurbits are so severely damaged that they have to be resown.
Adults of R. fovecollis have hemispherical, brown elytra. Dorsal surface of the beetle is brilliant orange red and the ventral surface is black. being clothed in short white hairs. Male beetle is about 6.2 mm in length and 3.4 mm in width. Females are longer in size (length 7.2 mm, width 4mm) than the males. The beetle shows sexual dimorphism. Grubs when full grown, measure about 12 mm in length and 3.5 mm in width across the mesothorax. They are creamy white, with slightly darker shield at the back.
It is apparent that a varying elements, balance sugars of and nutrients, amino acids differences concerning growth rate including may mineral account for and survival of pest and insect/plant relationship (Rodriguez, 1960; Auclair et al., 1957; Cibula et al., 1967). Maltais and Auclair, 1957;
Evidently the above cited works reveal that insect can evaluate the nutritive composition of foodstuffs on the basis of nutritional superiority. Insect nutrition increase our understanding of insect/plant relationships and can probably suggest ways to protect from insects. Insects' relationship with plants depends on how the latter, as foodstuffs, are able to meet the nutritional requirements of insects for their normal growth, development, reproduction and other vital functions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Objective of study | The nutritive ratio has generally been neglected in Entomology. It is a practical measure because it takes into account the components of the foodstuffs and the digestibility of each. Thus nutritive ratio of one food stuff differs from that of another. Tocalulate the DPDNP ratio, Nutrient requirements, Nutritive Ratio, coefficient of digestibility, efficiency of conversion. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Review of Literature | In livestock the value of foodstuff for nutrition depends
a great deal onthe nutritive ratio(Maynard1937; Morison1941). Likewise, for
insects also the nutrient balance, i.e. the proportional relationship between
nutrients in foodstuffs is very important (Gordon, 1959; House,1965b).
There is some evidence to suggest that the relative
quantities of nutrients in natural food of insect correspond closely with the
relative quantities required by the insect concerned (Verga, 1968; Vanderzant,
1958; Dadd, 1968). For example, it was found (Vanderzant, 1958)that an
amino acid mixture quantitatively and qualitatively equivalent to a cotton
protein conformed much more suitably with the requirements for growth in
Pectinophora gossypiella, that feeds on cotton, than did a mixture equivalent
to casein which was quite suitable for growth. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Methodology | Utilization of food plants was assessed by an experiment designed independently for each food plant. The experiment designed was similar to that of Pandey and Chatterji (1974). The amount of food ingested, digested and assimilated during grub period was assessed by cutting leaves along the midrib into two identical halves, one half was supplied to grubs and the other half was kept without grubs to calculate weight loss due to evaporation of water. The newly hatched grube of known weight per replicate vere transferred to fresh tender leaf discs of known weight of a particular plant in a petridish (15 cm dia.). Food was provided at every 24 h interval until grubs reached second instar, then it was supplied at 12h intervals. Before supplying the other instalment of fresh food, the consumed food and faecal matter released by the grubs were collected and their weight was recorded.
The other half portions of the leaves were kept in a petridish which was covered with fine muslin cloth secured with a rubber band. here also, the leaves of known weight were replaced, everytime fresh food was given to the grubs. The weight of the renewed leaves was recorded. The difference in the weight of the leaves after 24 h or 12h, at the case may be, provided that the quantity of water loss from the leaves due to evaporation.
The digestible quantity of a particular food constituent was obtained as under :
1. Digested quantity of a particular constituent= Consumed quantity of that constituent - Excreted quantity of the same.
2.The percent digestible nutrients and the nutritive ratio were calculated by following expressions:Quantity of proteins/fats/carbohydrates digested %digestible proteins/ fats/carbohydrates=- x100 Quantity of proteins/ fats/carbohydrates consumed %digestible carbohydrate+%digestible fats x 2.25Nutritive Ratio= % digestible protein.
3.The proportion of the quantity of proteins to quantities of carbohydrates and fats available after digestion was calculated as DPDNP Ratio as given below : Quantity of digested proteins DPDNP Ratio=-- Quantity of digested carbohydrates+ Quantity of digested fats. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Result and Discussion |
The data obtained from the test are analysed stasticaly. The nutritive and DNDNPRatios of Cucurbits with reference to Raphidopalpa fovecollis are as shown in table below- Table
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Findings | The nutritive ratio of the cucurbits varied from 2.2563 to 2.9584. It was more with Cucumis utilissmus than C. pepo or L. cylindrica. It appeared to have direct relationship with grub period, pupal duration and the total developmental duration but indirect relationship with the grub weight on the 12th day), grub survival,fecundity and hatchability . The DPDNP ratio was also variable among three successful cucurbits ,it was only 0.229 with C. utilissmus but was considerably more with C. pepo or L.cylindrica.The growth of the grub on the 12th day, survival ,fecundity and hatching appeared to increase with the increase in the DPDNP ratio but on the contrary, the grub period and the pupal duration tended to decrease with increasing DPDNP ratio. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Conclusion |
Nutritive Ratio:
Cucumis utilissmus >Lagenaria cylindrica >Cucurbita pepo > Luffaa acutangula >Luffaa aegyptiaca Momordica charantia DPDNP Ratio:- Lagenaria cylindrica > Cucurbita pepo> Lagenaria cylindrica> Luffaa acutangula >Luffaa aegyptiaca > Momordica charantia. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| References | 1. Bhattacharya, A.K. (1976) and Pant, N.C. Studies on the host plant relationship :Consumption and utilization profile in insects. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., India, 46(B) I and II 273-301,
2. Cartier, J.J.(1968) Factors of host plant specificity and artificial diets. Bul. ent.Soc. Am. 14: 18-21.
3. Dadd, R.H.(1960) Observation on the Palatability and Utilization of food by locusts with Particular reference to the interpretation of Performances in growth trails using synthetic diets. Ent.Exptl.appl. 3: 283-304.
4. House ,H.L.(1962). Friend, W.G.(1958) Nutritional requirements of Phytophagous insects. Ann. Rev. Ent. 3: 57-74. Insect nutrition.In:The physiologyof insecta(In.Rockstein,Ed).vol2:769-813.NEW YARK.Academic Press
5. Grabstein EM, Scriber JM. Host—plant utilization by Hyalophora cecropia as affected by prior feeding experience. Entomologia Eperimentalis et Applicata. 1982;32:262–268.
6. Green PWC, Stevenson PC, Simmonds MSJ, Sharma HC. Can larvae of the pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera), select between wild and cultivated pigeonpea Cajanus sp. Fabaceae? Bulletin of Entomological
7. Wang Y, Cai QN, Zhang QW, Han Y. Effect of the secondary substances from wheat on the growth and digestive physiology of cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). European Journal of Entomology. 2006;103:255–258. ]
8. Wilson F, Huffaker CB. The physiology, scope and importance of biological control. In: Huffaker CH, Messenger PS, editors. Theory and Practice of Biological Control. Academic Press; 1976. pp. 3–15. ]
9. Zalucki MP. 1991. Heliothis research methods and prospects. Springer. Research. 2002;92:45–51. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
