Susceptibility of different genomic banana cultivars to banana leaf and fruit scar beetle, Nodostomasubcostatum (Jacoby)

Fouzia Bari¹ , Nilanjana Chaudhury² , S.K. Senapti³

¹Department of Entomology. Uttar Banga Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Cooch Behar, W.B. 736165

²Professor Agricultural Entomology RRS (Terai Zone). Uttar Banga Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Cooch Behar, W.B. 736165.

³Professor Agricultural Entomology. Uttar Banga Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Cooch Behar, W.B. 736165.

Corresponding Author Email: barifouzia92@gmail.com

DOI : https://doi.org/10.51470/ABP.2024.03.01.07

Abstract

Keywords

Download this article as:

Introduction

Banana (Musa paradisicaLinnaeus) is an important fruit crop in India and plays a major role in the dietary supplements.It was originated in South-East Asia (Simmonds, 1966) and one of the important fruit crops of the region. India ranks first in terms of area (830 ha) and production (29780 MT) with a productivity of 35.9 MT/ha (Anonymous, 2021). Bananas are grown in more than 150 countries, producing 105 million tonnes of fruit per year (Anonymous, 2000). The global production of banana is around 102028.17 thousand tons of which India contributes 32% of the total global banana production (Anonymous, 2020). The year-round fruiting habit of the crop ensures food security at household level and provide a source of income for the majority of smallholder as well as large holder growers in the country. The major constraints on present and future production of bananas and plantains are pests and diseases attacking at different growth stages of the plants. More than 470 species of insects and mites have been recorded pest attacking on banana. Of these, 250 are foliage feeders, 10 are pseudostem borers, 70 feed on roots and rhizomes, 130 feed on fruits and flowers, and more than 10 are disease vectors. Among different insect pests attack banana, leaf and fruit scarring beetle, Nodostomasubcostatum Jacoby (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) has beenrecognized as a most serious one. It causes considerable damage to leavesas well as fruits during summer and rainy seasons resulting in heavy economic losses (Sen andPrasad, 1953). The extent of damage inflicted upon banana crop by this pest has been reported to be around 80 per cent (Roy and Sharma, 1952) and in case of severe infestation, the percentageof infested orchards and intensity of the pest have been recorded up to 100 per cent. The damage caused to skin of the fruit, leaves the bunch so badly scarred as to lose its commercial value, which affect both quality and productivity of the fruits. The physical appearance of peel is especially important in the export market. As it is a serious pest causing scars on the fruits, the fruits affected by this pest have poor market acceptability. On the contrary there are some varieties/ types of banana which are found free from beetle attack. Moderate to high levels of resistance among cultivated genotypes can be exploited in an IPM strategy to control the banana Scar beetle. The use of resistant cultivars in IPM acts by reducing the rates of a pest population build up and this could be effectively achieved with moderate levels of host resistance, especially if it is antibiotic in nature (de Ponti, 1982; Pathak, 1991). It was reported that banana cultivar varied significantly in their reaction to scarring beetle. Therefore, varietal screening becomes one of the non-insecticidal tools for protecting the banana crop against scarring beetle (Kumar, 1989; Chaudhuryet al., 1996).Among the evaluated cultivars at Poovan, Ladie’sfinger, Bhimkel and Kanchkel were recorded as highly resistant (HR), whereasChampa, Polyan and Chinia were categorized as resistant (R) on the other Kanthali, Malbhog, Agni sagar and Vellarywere graded moderate susceptible (MS). The variety such as Neypoovan, Srimanti, Kothia and Raja Vazhai were found susceptible (S) and Barsai, Dwarf cavandish,Sinduri, Monthon, Kasturi and Robusta were found highly susceptible (HS).

Materials and methods

The experiment was conducted in Horticultural instructional Farm UBKV during 2019-2022 to evaluate the selected banana cultivars Susceptible/Resistance to the scar beetle. In this experiment twelve cultivars were selected to study namely Katchakela, Bichikela, Modhubash, ChiniMalbhog, Malbhog, G9, G9 tissue culture, Red banana, Thellachakrakeli, Manua, Amrit Sagar and Amrit Sagar tissue culture. The experiment was laid out in RBD with each cultivar replicated thrice consisting of ten plants. Observations on ten plants of each cultivar were recorded with respect to beetle population, Scar/ 20cm² area of leaf, Scar/ finger, percentage infested fruit/ bunch, length and diameter of fruit, weight of single fruit and Yield/ bunch. Beetle population per plant and damage caused by them as scar/20 cm² leaf area per plant of each selected cultivar was observed throughout the year on weekly basis.  The counting of beetle population was done by net collection methodand mean beetle population was calculated.  Scar on leaves were calculated on 20cm² area of freshly opened leaves from each cultivar and the mean was worked out. Scar on fruit were calculated by counting the no of scars per fruit in single hand from the emergence of fruit to till harvest. After harvest, length and breadth of fruit, weight of single fruit and weight of bunches were recorded and mean were calculated. Percentage infested fruit/ bunch were calculated by counting total number of healthy as well as infested fingers and finally mean percent finger infestation was calculated. The cultivars were finally categorized into different groups of resistant/susceptible with certain modifications of the scale given by Kumar (1989) as per details given below:

Highly Susceptible (HS) = More than 80 per cent infestation

Susceptible (S) = 60 to 80 per cent infestation

Moderately Susceptible = 40 to 60 (MS) per cent infestation

Resistant (R) = 20 to 40 per cent infestation

Highly Resistant (HR) = Less than 20 per cent infestation

% Fruit Infestation = No. of infested finger per bunch x 100/ Total no. of finger/ bunch.

List of screened banana cultivars and their genome

The resistance and susceptibility attributes of banana cultivar has been assessed on the basis of varietal characters such as leaf moisture percentage (% age), cuticle thickness of leaves (mm) and peel thickness of fruits (mm) were also assessed along with their role in pest population and infestation.For analysis of these biochemical different stages of plant such as young (furled) and old (unfurled) leaves and unripe and ripe fruit peel from infested leaves and fruits were drawn separately from each of the selected cultivar and they were subjected to quantification.

Result and discussion

Beetle population: The significantly highest and on par beetle population was recorded in cultivar G9 (22.21/ plant) followed by G9 TC (21.71/ plant). Comparatively higher populations 19.86 and 16.15 beetles/ plant were recorded in Malbhog and ChiniMalbhog respectively. The infestation was same in Modhubash (12.58 beetles/plant), Amrit Sagar (13.66 beetles/ plant) and Amrit Sagar TC (13.21 beetles/ plant). The lowest population was recorded in Red banana (4.80 beetles/ plant) which was found at par with Manua (5.33 beetles/ plant) and Thellachakrakeli (5.93 beetles/ plant). Comparatively lower population was observed in cultivar Katchakela (8.71 beetles/ plant) and Bichikela (7.80 beetles/ plant).

Leaf infestation: The significantly highest leaf infestation was recorded in cultivar G9 (33.83 scar/ 20 cm² area of leaf) and G9 TC(32.80scar/ 20 cm² area of leaf).Comparatively higher leaf infestation was recorded in cultivar Malbhog (30.20 no. of scar/ 20 cm² area of leaf),Amrit Sagar (26.29 scars/ 20 cm² area of leaf), Amrit Sagar TC (25.64 scars/ 20 cm² area of leaf) and ChiniMalbhog (22.02 no. of scar/ 20 cm² area of leaf). Modhubash and Katchakela were recorded significantly on par infestation 16.46 and 14.38 no. of scar/ 20 cm² area of leaf. The least infestation on leaf was recorded in cultivar Red banana (8.95scar/ 20 cm² area of leaf), Thellachakrakeli (9.21scar/ 20 cm² area of leaf), Manua (9.67 scar/ 20 cm² area of leaf) and Bichikela (10.63scar/ 20 cm² area of leaf).

Scar per finger: Fruit infestation due to scar beetle population was highest in G9 (85.31 scar/ finger) and G9 TC (83.73 scar/ finger). The other cultivar such as Malbhog (64.54no. of scar/ finger), Amrit Sagar (58.20 no. of scar/ finger) and Amrit Sagar TC (59.42 no. of scar/ finger) were found comparatively higher infestation. The comparatively lower infestations were recorded Katchakela (50.21, 49.65, 47.92 and 46.50 no. of scar/ finger), ChiniMalbhog (50.21, 49.65, 47.92 and 46.50 no. of scar/ finger), Modhubash (50.21, 49.65, 47.92 and 46.50 no. of scar/ finger) and Bichikela (50.21, 49.65, 47.92 and 46.50 no. of scar/ finger). The least infestation was recorded in Red Banana (20.99no. of scar/ finger) followed by Thellachakrakeli (24.06 and 31.10 no. of scar/ finger) and Red banana (24.06 and 31.10 no. of scar/ finger).

Percent fruit infestation

The highest percentage of infested fruit per bunch was observed in G9 (81.70%) non-significantly followed by G9 TC (80.59%) and Malbhog (78.87%). The infestation in Amrit Sagar and Amrit Sagar TC were 67.66 and 71.44 %/ bunch and they were at par with each other. The cultivar ChiniMalbhog (59.39%/ bunch), Katchakela (57.83 %/ bunch), Modhubash (57.42%/ bunch) and Bichikela (48.73%/ bunch) were comparatively less infested. The least infestation was observed in Red Banana (24.66%), Thellachakrakeli (29.55%) and Manua (33.17%) and they were statistically at par with each other.

Correlation between beetle population and %fruit infestation (0.934) showed highly significant and positive relation at 1% and 5 % level of significance (Table-5). Similarly, the correlation between scar/ 20cm² area of leaf and % fruit infestation/ Bunch (0.941) also found highly significant and positive at 1% and 5 % level of significance.

The obtained results are in accordance with Mishra et al. (2015) and Paul et al. (2020) who reported the highest population of 32.2 and 24.81beetles/ plant and 35.00 and 28.4 scars/ 20 cm² area of leaf in Cavandish group of bananas in Assam and Tripura. Mishra et al., (2015) also reported highest fruit scars on Dwarf- Cavendish. Paul et al. (2020) recorded 9.62 number of beetles/plants in cultivar Katchakela which is at par with the present result. But they recorded 0.67 number of beetle population/plants in cultivar Attia Kela. Das and Baruah (2018) recorded lower level of leaf and fruit infestation in banana cultivars such as Bhimkel, Bichikela and Katchakela and considered as moderately resistant, while Malbhog, Chinichampa and Amrit Sagar recorded higher leaf infestation and considered as susceptible to scar beetle in Assam. They recorded 90 to 100% leaf and 85-100% fruit infestation in Grand Nain (G9), GaintGoverner, Jahaji and Barjahaji and considered as highly susceptible to scar beetle. The findings of present study also support Sen and Prasad (1953) where Alpan, Champa and Malbhog were seriously affected by the beetle and appeared as susceptible to scar beetle in Bihar. The results under present investigation closely resemble the findings of Ahmad et al. (2003) and Mukherjee (2006) where the maximum damage by banana scarring beetle on fruits were noticed on Barsai, Shabri and Amrit Sagar.

Fruit length (cm):The longest fruit in cultivar G9 (22.89 cm) and G9 TC (22.28 cm). The cultivar Amrit Sagar (17.60 cm) and Bichikela (16.88 cm), Amrit Sagar TC (16.78 cm) and Katchakela (16.28 cm) had statistically same fruit length.  The fruit length of cultivar Red banana (14.55 cm), Manua (14.04 cm) and Thellachakrakeli (13.19 cm) were also found statistically at par. On the other hand, the lowest fruit length was observed in ChiniMalbhog (11.05 cm) and Modhubash (11.81 cm).

Fruit diameter (cm):The highest fruit diameter was recorded in cultivar Bichikela (5.83 cm). It was followed by G9 Tissue culture (4.25 cm) and Katchakela (4.23 cm), and Amrit Sagar TC (4.22 cm) and they were found statistically at par with each other. Similarly, the cultivar Amrit Sagar (4.12 cm) andG9 (4.05 cm) and found at par with each other. The fruit width was at par in Red Banana (3.80 cm), Modhubash (3.75 cm), Thellachakrakeli (3.70 cm) and Manua (3.58 cm). The lowest fruit diameter was recorded in ChiniMalbhog (2.72 cm) and Malbhog (3.18 cm).

Fruit weight (gm):Highest fruit weight (202.17g/finger) was recorded in cultivar Bichikela. The fruit weight of other cultivar in descending order was, Katchakela (164.17g/finger), G9 (148.67g/finger), G9 TC (138.50g/ finger) and Modhubash (117.83g/ finger). The cultivar Amrit Sagar (102.17g/finger), Amrit Sagar TC (96.50g/finger) and Red banana (96.50g/finger) recorded same weight. The cultivar Manua and Thellachakrakeli recorded 88.50g/finger and 81.33g/finger. The lowest fruit weight was recorded in ChiniMalbhog (71.17g/finger) and followed by Malbhog (74.83g/finger).

Yield(Kg/ Bunch):Highest yield of 18.26 kg/ bunch in cultivar G9, and Bichikela (17.60kg/bunch). The cultivar Katchakela, Modhubash and G9 TC yielded 14.69, 10.84 and 17.40 kg/bunch respectively. In Amrit Sagar and Amrit Sagar TC the yield was 8.79 and 8.20 kg/bunch. The cultivar Red banana (7.56 kg/bunch), Manua (7.54 kg/bunch) and Malbhog (7.35kg/bunch) yielded statistically same. The minimum yield was recorded in Thellachakrakeli (6.14kg/ bunch) and ChiniMalbhog (6.83 kg/ bunch).

These findings of yield parameters are found in accordance with Sah et al.(2018) who reported that the damage caused to skin of the fruit, left the bunch so badly scarred and due to this damage, photosynthetic area was reduced and ultimately growth of fruit (length, width and weight) and ultimately yield was affected.

Moisture Percentage of leaves (%): The highest percentage of leaf moisture was recorded from Bichikela (85.92%) and Red Banana (85.23%) and Thellachakrakeli (84.33%). The cultivar Katchakela (83.04%) and Manua (83.31%) had statistically at par leaf moisture. Moisture of Malbhog, Modhubash and ChiniMalbhog leaves was statistically same 80.19%, 79.77% and 78.66%. The moisture in Amrit Sagar (76.11%) and Amrit Sagar TC (75.23%) were statistically at par with each other. The lowest moisture percentage was recorded in the leaves of both G9 (74.21%) and G9 TC (73.50%).The relation between moisture percentage of leaves with beetle population and infestation caused by them was found negative and significant. It indicates that leaf moisture gets inversely affected due to feeding by beetle leads into loss of moisture and desiccation of leaves after scar formation.

Cuticular thickness of leaves (mm): The significantly thick cuticle was recorded in Bichikela (0.131 mm) and Thellachakrakeli (0.124 mm). The cultivar Red Banana, Manua and Katchakela cuticle thickness was recorded as 0.114, 0.114 and 0.108 mm respectively and they were statistically at par. The cultivar Malbhog (0.11 mm), G9 (0.108 mm) and G9 Tissue Culture (0.108 mm) recorded at par cuticle thickness. The significantly thinnest cuticle was observed in ChiniMalbhog (0.094 mm), Modhubash (0.094 mm), Amrit Sagar TC (0.095 mm) and Amrit Sagar (0.096 mm) leaf. The relation between cuticle thickness of leaves with beetle population and infestation caused by them was significant and negative. The reason behind this might be due to thick cuticle caused hindrance to the beetle to scrape the epidermal layer of leaves and thereby reflected on scar development. The Cuticular thickness of leaves is a varietal genetic character which varies with varieties.

Thickness (mm) of fruit Peel: Thickest peel was recorded in Modhubash (3.70mm) and Bichikela (3.60mm) and they were statistically at par. The cultivar Red Banana, Katchakela, Manua and Thellachakrakeli recorded moderately thick peel (3.26, 3.25, 3.12 and 3.10 mm respectively). The cultivar G9 (2.70 mm) and G9 Tissue Culture (2.75 mm) recorded at par peel thickness. The significantly thinnest peel was observed in ChiniMalbhog (1.52mm), Amrit Sagar (1.62 mm) and Amrit Sagar TC (1.67 mm) and Malbhog (1.70 mm).The relation between Peel thickness (mm) of fruitwith beetle population and infestation caused by them was found negative and significant. The reason behind the negative correlation may be due to hindrance of beetle population to make scar on the fruits. The fruit peel thickness is a genetic character of varieties and it varies over the varieties.

Conclusion

The present studies reveal a wide range of variation in susceptibility, among the selected cultivars against banana leaf and fruit scarring beetle, however the physical characters, namely cuticular thickness, fruit peel thickness and moisture percentage showed significant difference. The resistance and susceptibility attributes of banana cultivars has been assessed with different varietal characters and their role on pest population and thereby infestation. Since the beetles scrape the surface of leaf and peel of the tender fruits, the leaf thickness, peel thickness and moisture content has played an important role on the magnitude of the damage. Among the cultivars thickness of leaves (mm) was found highest on Bichikela (0.131) followed by Thellachakrakeli (0.124), Red banana and Manua (0.114). Peel thickness (in mm) was recorded highest in Modhubash (3.70) followed by Bichikela (3.60), Red banana (3.26) and Katchakela (3.25). Following leaf infestation moisture %age of leaves observed highest in Bichikela (85.92) followed by Red banana (85.23) and Thellachakrakeli (84.33). On the contrary thinner leaf cuticle (mm) was found in Modhubash and ChiniMalbhog (0.94) followed by Amrit Sagar TC (0.95) and Amrit Sagar (0.96). The thinnest peel of fruit (mm) was recorded in ChiniMalbhog (1.52) followed by Amrit Sagar (1.62) and Amrit Sagar TC (1.67). Lower moisture percent in leaf was observed in G9TC (73.5) followed by G9 (74.21) and Amrit Sagar TC (75.22).

It is noteworthy to mention here that almost all selected varietal parameters namely Cuticular thickness of leaf, fruit peel thickness, leaf moisture percentage were significantly correlated with beetle population and its infestation level. This phenomenon indicates increment of those characters in different cultivars caused reduction of beetle population.

It can therefore be said that among the twelve cultivars studied Red banana, Thellachakrakeli and Manua are relatively resistant and G9, G9 TC and Malbhog are susceptible to leaf and fruit scar beetle.

References

1. Ahmad M A, Singh P, and Singh B (2003) Efficacy of certain synthetic insecticides and plant    products used as foliar and whorl application against the scarring beetle (Nodostomasubcostatum Jacoby) on banana. Journal of Entomological Research27 (4): 325-328.
2. Ahmed M, Aboul-Enein, Zeinab A Salama, Alaa A Gaafar, Hanan F Aly, Faten A bou-Elella and Habiba Ahmed (2016) Identification of phenolic compounds from banana peel (Musaparadaisica L.) as antioxidant and antimicrobial agents. Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research. 8(4):46-55.
3. Anonymous (2000) Bunch covers for improving plantain and banana peel quality. National Agriculture Research Institute. Technical Bulletin.4.
4. Anonymous (2020) In: Annual Research Report (2019-20). All India coordinated research project on banana. National Research Centre for Banana, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, India.
5. Anonymous (2021) In: Agri exchange. APEDA report 2021-2022. agriexchange.apeda.gov.in.
6. Bashmil Yasmeen M, Akhtar Ali, Amrit BK, Frank R Dunshea and Hafiz A R Suleria (2021) “Screening and Characterization of Phenolic Compounds from Australian Grown Bananas and Their Antioxidant Capacity” Antioxidants. 10(10):15-21.
7. Chaudhary S K, and Mukherjee U (1996) Banana cultivars reaction against scarring beetle, basileptasubcostatum Jacoby. Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystem. 2: 20-23.
8. Das D and Baruah K (2018) Management of banana leaf and fruit scarring beetle Nodostoma viridipennisMotsch. in Assam. Indian J. Entomol. 80(3): 703-705.
9. de Ponti, O M B (1982) Plant resistance to insects: a challenge to plant breeders and entomologists. In: Proc 5th International Symposium on Insect-Plant Relationships, Pudoc, Wageningen. The Netherlands.  337–347.
10. Farkas G L and Kirlay Z (1962) Role of phenolic compounds in the physiology of plant disease resistance. Phytopathology. Z.44:105-150.
11. Fogain R (1996) Screenhouse evaluation of Musa for susceptibility to Radopholussimilis: evaluation of plantains AAB and diploid AA, AB and BB. In: New frontiers in resistance breeding for nematode, Fusarium and Sigatoka, held at Kuala Lumpur (MYS), INIBAP, Montpellier (FRA).79-86.
12. Ganguly A K and Dasgupta D R (1980) Purification and some properties of peroxidase from resistant and susceptible varieties of Lycopersicumesculentum infested with root-knot nematode, Meloidogyneincognita. Indian J. Nematology, 21: 113-122.
13. Goodman R N, Kiraly E, and Ziatlin M (1967) The biochemistry and physiology of infectious plant diseases. D. Van. Nosti and Co., Princeton, New Jersey. 354-360.
14. KhoshKholghm A and Ando (1995) Effect of food environments, particularly sodium ion on the synthesis of chlorophyll and plant growth C4. Abstracts Third Crop Science Congress of Iran. Tabriz University.
15. Kumar K K 1989 Distribution and extent of damage of scarring beetle (Colopsissp.) to banana in Bihar. In: Proc. Sixth Biennial Workshop of the All India Coordinated Research Project on Tropical Fruits, held on 13th to 16^th September, 1989 at S.V.Agril.College, APAU, Tirupati (India). 4. 402-403.
16. Mishra H, D K Bora, B Bhattacharyya, D Das and K Baruah (2015). Population dynamics of banana leaf and fruit scarring beetle, Nodostoma subcostatumjacoby in Assam. Indian Journal of Entomology.77(3): 226-229.
17. Mukherjee U (2006) Evaluation of insecticides and some eco-friendly approaches to manage scarring beetle, Basileptasubcostatum in banana. Journal of Applied Zoological Research, 17(1): 54-56.
18. Pathak R S (1991) Plant Genetics in pest management. Insect Sci Appl12: 553–564.
19. Paul P, Das S C, Saha S, & Uma S (2020) Studies on population dynamics and damage potential of banana leaf and fruit scarring beetle, Basileptasubcostatum Jacoby on local and wild banana genotypes of Tripura. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies.8 (4): 2020-2026.
20. Roy R S and Sharma C (1952) Disease and pest of banana and their control. Indian Journal of Horticulture, 9 (4): 39-52.
21. Seenivasan N (2011) Efficacy of Pseudomonasflourescens and Paecilomyceslilacinus Against Meloidogynegraminicola Infesting Rice Under System of Rice Intensification. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot., 44: 1467-1482.
22. Sen A C and Prasad D (1953) Pest of banana in Bihar. Indian Journal of Entomology, 15 (3):  240-256.
23. Shahriari R (1999) Of cold tolerance in wheat. M.Sc. Thesis Plant Breeding. Islamic Azad University of Ardabil.
24. Simmonds, N.W. (1966) “Pests” In Banana. Longman, 2: 334-360.
25. Sowmya H D, Saxena A K, Meenakshi S, Rani R T & Mahmood R (2011) Transgenic banana cv. Rasthali (AAB, Silk gp) harboring Ace-AMP1 gene imparts enhanced resistance to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense race. Scientia Horticulturae. 164: 392-399.
26. Valette C, Nicole M, Sarah J L, Boisseau M, Boher B, Fargette M and Geiger J P (1997) Ultrastructure and cytochemistry of interactions between banana and the nematode, Radopholussimilis. Fundamental and Appl. Sci. 20: 65-77.
27. Zacheo G, Zacheo, T B, Pacoda D, Orlando C and Durbin R D (1995) The association between heat induced susceptibility of tomato to Meloidogyneincoginta and peroxidase activity. Physiol. Mol. Pl. Path. 46: 491-507.
28. Zaefizade H M, R Goliov (2009) The Effect of the Interaction between Genotypes and Drought Stress on the Superoxide Dismutase and Chlorophyll Content in Durum Wheat Landraces. Turk J Boil. 33: 1-7.