tomato fruitworm


Also found in: Dictionary, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Graphic Thesaurus  🔍
Display ON
Animation ON
Legend
Synonym
Antonym
Related
  • noun

Synonyms for tomato fruitworm

References in periodicals archive ?
At 20 wk after seeding out, beginning with the earliest maturing lines (i.e., those that had [is greater than] 10% but [is less than] 30% breaker or riper fruit), all fruits from inoculated plants were harvested and sorted into the following categories: 1) undamaged green, 2) undamaged breaker (i.e., showing color) or riper, 3) tomato fruitworm or beet armyworm damaged green, 4) tomato fruitworm or beet armyworm damaged breaker or riper, 5) damaged fruit not dearly attributable to tomato fruitworm or beet armyworm.
Fruit were stripped from the four plants and sorted into five categories: 1) undamaged green, 2) undamaged breaker or riper, 3) beet armyworm damaged, 4) tomato fruitworm damaged, or 5) damaged but not clearly attributable to beet armyworm or tomato fruitworm.
Year, population, line(population), and year x line (population) effects were significant to highly significant for all measurements of beet armyworm and tomato fruitworm damage, fruit mass, fruit yield, SSC, pH (except that year effect was not significant for pH), proportion of potato aphid infested plants and maturity (data not shown).
Beet armyworm and tomato fruitworm inoculations produced significant fruit damage in both years.
IBL variance and heritability estimates for beet armyworm and tomato fruitworm damage were moderate and very similar in both the [BC.sub.2] and [BC.sub.3] populations (Table 2).
High IBL correlations ([MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) between insect damage by beet armyworm and tomato fruitworm, and maturity and fruit mass, were observed in both [BC.sub.2] and [BC.sub.3] populations (Table 4).
Significant two-variable models were fitted to line means (years combined) of beet armyworm and tomato fruitworm damage for both the [BC.sub.2] and [BC.sub.3] populations.
Significant variation among IBL for the amount of fruit damage by beet armyworm and tomato fruitworm were observed (Table 1 and data not shown).
Estimates of [H.sub.IBL] for beet armyworm and tomato fruitworm damage were moderately high and did not vary greatly between the two levels of backcrossing (Table 2), nor did the ratios of observed versus predicted gain vary greatly (Table 3).
If, for example, individual IBL are still segregating for genes controlling beet armyworm and tomato fruitworm damage, lower than expected gains might be explained by the association of dominance and/or epistatic interactions with those traits.
Lower beet armyworm and tomato fruitworm damage was generally associated with unfavorable horticultural traits, such as late maturity, and reduced fruit mass and yield, from the LA 716 donor parent (Table 4).
Variation in potato aphid infested plants was not strongly correlated with any of the horticultural traits measured, nor was a low proportion of potato aphid infested plants strongly associated with low beet armyworm or tomato fruitworm damage (data not shown).
Interestingly, we identified IBL that exhibited beet armyworm, tomato fruitworm, and aphid resistance yet did not have significant acylsugar expression, suggesting that other mechanisms of resistance were introgressed.