Int. J. Biosci.3(7), 132-147, July 2013
In the experiment, coconut was collected randomly from Khulna, Satkhira and Bagherhat districts of Bangladesh and categorized into five grades based upon infestation pattern of coconut mite on coconut. The experimental treatments of factorial experiment consisted of three locations (L1= Khulna, L2 = Bagherhat and L3 = Satkhira); two varieties (V1= Green and V2= Brown) and five grades on the basis of mite infestation which are G0 = nuts with no mite damage, G1 = nuts with 1-29% surface area damage, G2 = nuts with 30-59% surface area damage and less than 20% reduction in size, G3 = nuts with 60-80% surface area damage, 20-30% reduction in size and G4 = nuts with over 80% surface area damage with 30% reduction and often greatly deformed. From the study it was found that most of the cases highest values were recorded from G0 and the lowest values were recorded from G4. It was found that the dry weight of copra was significantly varied among the different grades. The highest dry weight (164.33g) was recorded from G0 and the lowest (386.94g) from G4. Among the location, the fruits collected from Khulna and Satkhira gave highest values and the lowest value was recorded from the fruits of Bagherhat district. From the experiment it was found that water loss was observed about 0, 5.5, 34.19, 50 and 62.59% in damage categories of G0, G1, G2, G3 and G4, respectively. For the copra yield considerable loss was occurred that ware 0, 13.22, 24.90, 38.00 and 52.72% in damage categories G0, G1, G2, G3 and G4, respectively. Observed coconut shell losses were 0, 7.28, 15.32, 24.42, and 37.17% corresponding to damage categories G0, G1, G2, G3 and G4, respectively. Due to mite infestation about 37.17% coconut shell loss, 62.59% water loss and 52.72% copra yield loss was occurred when nuts with over 80% surface area damaged with 30% reduction of size.
Anonymous. 1985. Pests of economic importance to the Caribbean coconut industry. Presented at the coconut mite control workshop, 19-21 June 1985. St. Lucia. 6-17.
BBS. 2008. Statistical Year Book, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Ministry of Planning, Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh. 171.
Bose TK, Mitra SK. 1980. Fruits: Tropical & Subtropical. Nobodut and Co. Ltd. New Delli. 32-34.
Foale M. 2003. The Coconut Odyssey: the bounteous possibilities of the tree of life. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. Accessed 2009. 5-30.
Gomez AK, Gomez AA. 1984. Statistical Procedure for Agricultural Research. Intl. Rice Res. Inst. John Willey and Sons. New York. 1-340.
Hall RA. 1981. Unpublished. Report on 1981 Mission to Mexico – Mite damage and possibilities of its control. 11-23.
Julia JF, Mariau D. 1979. New research on the coconut mite E. guerreronis (K), in the Ivory Coast. Oléagineux (France) 34,181-189.
Mariau D, Julia JF. 1970. Acariasis caused by A. guerreronis (Keifer), pest of the coconut palm. Oléagineux 25, 459-464.
Mariau D. 1969. Aceria guerreronis: Récent ravageur de la cocoteraie Dahoméenne. Oléagineux 24, 209-272.
McCoy CW, Aibrigo LG. 1975. Feeding injury to the orange caused by the citrus Rust mite, Phyllocoptruta oleivora (Prostigmata: Eriophyoidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 68, 289-297.
Moore D, Alexander L, Hall RA. 1989. The coconut mite, E. guerreronis Keifer in St. Lucia: yield losses and attempt to control it with acaricide, polybutene and Hirsutellafungus. Tropical Pest Management 35, 83-89.
Singh RB. 1993. Fruit Production in the Asia-Pacific region. Research and Development of Fruits in Asia Pacific Region (ed. R. B. Singh), RAPA/FAO, Bangkok. 1-26 and 57-68.
Werth E. 1983. Distribution, Origin and Cultivation of the Coconut Palm (in periodical: Ber. Deutschen. Bot. Ges. 51, 301-304.