Seasonal incidence of leaf hopper infesting cherry tomato under protected cultivation

Introduction

Cherry tomato Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiforme is an economically valuable crop cultivated globally for its distinctive flavor, high nutritional value and adaptability to diverse agro-climatic conditions. With origins traced to Peru and Northern Chile, cherry tomato is considered one of the progenitors of cultivated tomatoes (Prema et al., 2011) [8] . These table tomatoes feature small, bright red fruits with a distinctive cherry-like flavor (Charlo et al., 2007) [4] . When compared to conventional tomatoes, cherry varieties demonstrate superior adaptability to diverse climates and good productivity (Anayat et al., 2022) [1] . Nutritionally, cherry tomatoes are exceptional, one cup of cherry tomatoes (149 g) provide 26.8 calories of energy, 1.3 g of protein, 4.5 mg of omega-3 fatty acids, 119 mg of omega-6 fatty acids, 1241 IU of vitamin A, 18.9 mg of vitamin C, 22.3 mcg of folic acid, 353 mg of potassium, 35.8 mg of phosphorus, 14.9 mg of calcium, 0.43 mg of acidity and 10.4 TSS (USDA, 2017) [10] . Despite its commercial potential, cherry tomato production is severely constrained by major sucking pests viz., whitefly (Bemisia tabaci Gennadius) and leaf hopper (Amrasca devastans Ishida) (Anu et al., 2020) [3] . These sucking pests puncture the fruits through their stylet and introduce secondary infections which destroy the quality of fruit or act as vector of many viruses and mycoplamas that cause growth disorders or death of the plant (Arno et al., 2009) [2] . Their prevalence is influenced by seasonal variations and the microclimatic conditions within protected structures necessitating a detailed understanding of their population dynamics. So, the present study was formulated to know the incidence of whitefly and leafhopper infestation during cropping season of cherry tomato under protected cultivation.

Materials and Methods

The field experiment was carried out at Horticulture Garden, College of Agriculture, Professor Jayashankar Telangana Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad at an altitude of 563 m above MSL lying between 17° 19' 14'' N latitude and 78° 24' 58'' E longitude. The cherry tomato crop was raised on uniform black clay soil in 300 m 2 area during rabi 2024-25. The experimental plot was established using RBD and divided into five quadrants for systematic observations for major sucking pests of cherry tomato under protected cultivation.

Nursery plants was raised in pro trays and 20 days old seedlings of cherry tomato red round variety of cherry tomato were transplanted with 60 cm x 60 cm spacing. The crop was allowed for natural infestation of without any plant protection measures. The entire area was divided into five quadrants i.e., four in the corners and one in the middle of the plot to facilitate recording of observations on whitefly and leaf hopper. The field was inspected at weekly intervals i.e., SMW during morning hours between 6 AM to 9 AM to notice the natural infestation of major sucking pests infesting cherry tomato crop. For recording incidence of whitefly (number of whitefly nymphs and adults on five randomly selected leaves per plant) (NICRA, 2012) [514] and leaf hopper number of leaf hoppers from five leaves (three from top and two from middle) per plant (Patel et al., 2019) [7] were counted and mean population was calculated.

Results and Discussion

Weekly observations of the insect pest incidence were taken from December, 2024 to March, 2025 on 50 randomly selected plants (10 plants per quadrant) and expressed in terms of No. / 5 leaves / plant. The data pertaining to incidence of whitefly and leaf hopper is presented in table 1 and illustrated in figure 1. The whitefly population demonstrated a characteristic seasonal progression throughout the experimental period. During the initial observation (49 th and 50 th SMW), no whitefly individuals were detected, suggesting their delayed colonization compared to early crop establishment. The first occurrence was recorded during 51 st SMW with 1.12 whiteflies / 5 leaves / plant. Population density increased progressively during 52 nd SMW, reaching 1.73 whiteflies / 5 leaves / plant. From 1 st SMW onwards, a continuous upward trend was observed, with densities of 2.10, 2.90, 3.15, 4.17 and 5.90 whiteflies / 5 leaves / plant recorded during 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th and 5 th SMW respectively. The population attained its maximum during 6 th SMW, recording 6.80 whiteflies / 5 leaves / plant, coinciding with optimal plant growth conditions. High population densities continued during 7 th and 8 th SMW with 7.77 and 8.43 whiteflies / 5 leaves / plant respectively. Peak infestation was observed during 9 th SMW with 9.75 whiteflies / 5 leaves / plant. Subsequently, population levels declined to 6.44, 4.23 and 1.62 whiteflies / 5 leaves / plant during 10 th , 11 th and 12 th SMW respectively. The leaf hopper population displayed a gradual establishment pattern throughout the growing season. During the first three observation periods (49 th and 50 th SMW), populations remained negligible, with only 0.20 leaf hoppers / 5 leaves / plant recorded during 51 st SMW, followed by increase in population density increased moderately during 52nd SMW, reaching 0.56 leaf hoppers / 5 leaves / plant. Progressive increase continued from 1 st SMW onwards, with populations of 1.12, 1.27, 2.73, 3.40 and 5.20 leaf hoppers / 5 leaves / plant recorded during 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th SMW respectively. Peak population was observed during 6 th SMW with 6.59 leaf hoppers / 5 leaves / plant, aligning with active vegetative development. High densities were maintained during subsequent weeks, recording 7.99, 8.70 and 9.95 leaf hoppers / 5 leaves / plant during 7 th , 8 th and 9 th SMW respectively. Maximum infestation occurred during 9 th SMW. Population levels remained elevated at 8.00 leaf hoppers / 5 leaves / plant during 10 th SMW, followed by gradual reduction to 7.02 and 2.06 leaf hoppers / 5 leaves / plant during 11 th and 12 th SMW, respectively. Similar findings were observed by Tomar et al. (2024) [9] whiteflies reached peak during the 9 th SMW (7.90 whiteflies /3 leaves/plant) and Panse et al. (2020) [6] who reported that jassids attained its peak during 9 th SMW (9.26 Jassids / 6 leaves / plant). per plant during the corresponding periods. This synchronized population dynamic pattern indicates shared ecological requirements and optimal environmental conditions during the 6 th -9 th SMW period, providing critical information for implementing targeted integrated pest management strategies with intensive monitoring from 3 rd -4 th SMW and peak intervention during the identified high-risk period when both species reach maximum density and potential crop damage.

Disclaimer (Artificial Intelligence)

Author(s) hereby declares that NO generative AI technologies such as Large Language Models (Chat GPT, COPILOT, etc) and text-to-image generators have been used during writing or editing manuscripts.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementsThe authors are thankful to Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, Rajendranagar, PJTAU, Hyderabad for providing financial assistance. Competing InterestsAuthors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

1. Anayat R, Mufti S, Rashid Z, Parveen S, Nabi F. Cherry tomatoes: A brief description and suitable varieties for the greenhouse. 2022;2583-3146.
2. Arno J, Sorribas R, Parat M, Matas M, Pozo C, Rodriguez D, et al. Tuta absoluta, a new pest in IPM tomatoes in the North East of Spain. IOBC Bull. 2009;49:203-208.
3. Anu BC, Saha T, Kumari SAK. Screening of tomato genotypes for tolerance or susceptibility against sucking pests under field condition. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2020;8(2):742-745.
4. Charlo HCO, Castoldi R, Ito LA, Fernandes C, Braz LT. Production of cherry tomato under protected cultivation carried out with different types of pruning and spacing. Acta Hortic. 2007;761:323-326.
5. NICRA Team of Tomato Pest Surveillance. Manual for tomato pest surveillance. New Delhi: NCIPM; Hyderabad: CRIDA; Bengaluru: IIHR; Varanasi: IIVR. 2012:1-39.
6. Panse RK, Bisen S, Dongre R, Kadam DM, Kuldeep DK, Rajak SK. Pest population fluctuation in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) crop and their correlation with weather parameters. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2020;11:40554059.
7. Patel LC, Sarkar A. Efficacy of Spirotetramat 11.01 + Imidacloprid 11.01 SC against jassid, red mite and general predators in tomato. J Crop Weed. 2019;15(3):192-200.
8. Prema G, Indiresh KM, Santhosha HM. Evaluation of cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiforme) genotypes for growth, yield and quality traits. Asian J Hortic. 2011;6(1):181-184.
9. Tomar N, Singh P, Singh Sasode R, Bhadauria NS, Singh UC, Seervi S, et al. Seasonal incidence of whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) on tomato in Gird region of Madhya Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh J Zool. 2024;45(17):353-361. https://doi.org/10.56557/upjoz/2024/v45i174379
10. USDA. Cherry tomato nutritional information. USDA National Nutrient Database. 2017. Available from: www.lose-weight-withus.com/cherrytomato-nutrition.html [Accessed 2021 Jun 12].
11. Ayana DT, Olika GI. Effect of mulching practice as soil moisture conservation for tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) production under supplemental irrigation in Yabello district of Borana zone, Ethiopia. Acta Biol Forum. 2024;3(2):43-47.
12. Vidhya CS, Swamy GN, Das A, Noopur K, Vedulla M. Cyclic lipopeptides from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens PPL: antifungal mechanisms and their role in controlling pepper and tomato diseases. Microbiol Arch Int J. 2023.
13. Vardhan H, Sharma Y, Sharma A, Paras M, Agrahari R, Sharma K. Exploring heterosis utilization in cucurbitaceous vegetable crops. Agric Arch. 2022. https://doi.org/10.51470/AGRI
14. Shafiwu AB. Assessing consumer preferences and willingness to pay for safer vegetables in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Agric Arch Int J. 2025. https://doi.org/10.51470/AGRI.2025.4.1.26