|Jackson, David - Mike|
Submitted to: Arthropod Management Tests
Publication Type: Research notes
Publication Acceptance Date: 1/26/2006
Publication Date: 11/15/2006
Citation: Jackson, D.M., Bohac, J. 2006. Evaluation of Dry Fleshed Sweetpotato Genotypes for Resistance to Soil Insect Pests, 2003. Arthropod Management Tests, Volume 31, Report No. M4, Online Journal at http://www.entsoc.org/pubs/index.html. Interpretive Summary: Most commercial dry fleshed sweetpotato cultivars have little resistance to soil insect pests, which can severely limit marketable yields. Thus, there is a need to develop new varieties that have increased levels of insect resistance. This report describes the field evaluation of advanced dry fleshed sweetpotato entries from the USDA ARS sweetpotato breeding program at the U. S. Vegetable Laboratory (USVL), Charleston, SC. Eighteen sweetpotato clones, including two insect susceptible check cultivars, were evaluated for insect resistance in replicated field trials at Charleston, SC. Several of the advanced, dry fleshed germplasm lines were more resistant to soil insect pests than were the susceptible check varieties. The most promising of these advanced clones are being developed as breeding lines or new sweetpotato varieties.
Technical Abstract: This report describes a field evaluation of advanced dry fleshed sweetpotato germplasm from the USDA ARS sweetpotato breeding program at the U. S. Vegetable Laboratory (USVL), Charleston, SC. This field experiment included two insect susceptible, moist orange fleshed check cultivars (‘Beauregard’ and ‘SC1149 19’), an insect susceptible, dry fleshed check (‘Picadito’), an insect resistant, moist fleshed check (‘Regal’ ), and 14 mostly dry fleshed genotypes that were evaluated for insect resistance in replicated field trials at the USVL. Ten sweetpotato genotypes had a significantly higher percentage of undamaged roots than ‘SC1149 19’, and four genotypes had a significantly higher percentage of undamaged roots than ‘Beauregard’. Fourteen of the entries had significantly lower WDS rating (wireworm Diabrotica Systena) than ‘SC1149 19’, but only one genotype had a significantly lower WDS rating than ‘Beauregard’. Twelve entries had a significantly lower percentage infestation by flea beetles than did ‘SC1149 19’ or ‘Beauregard’. All but two genotypes had a significantly lower percentage of infestation by sweetpotato weevils than did ‘SC1149 19’.