BIBLIOGRAPHY



ELADJOE, KEVIN JOE P. APRIL 2011. Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with
Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet.


Adviser: Gemma S. Das-ilen, MSc.


ABSTRACT



The study was conducted at the Balili Entomology Experimental Area, Benguet State
University from September 2010 to January 2011. It aimed to identify the insects and other
arthropods found on Cape gooseberry plants, to evaluate the degree of injury or damage inflicted
by the different insect species and other arthropods to the plant, to identify the major and minor
pest of Cape gooseberry, to record the population of the insect and other arthropod species, to
identify the growth stages of the Cape gooseberry where most insects and other arthropods most
occur.

There were 30 organisms found on the Cape gooseberry plant during the study. It
comprised of 24 insects and six other arthropods.
The chewing insects and other arthropods had a sound to slight (zero to 25%) injury on
the plant during the seedling, vegetative, flowering and fruiting stages of the plant while the
piercing-sucking insects and other arthropods had a sound (no injury) during the seedling stage,
sound to slight (no injury to curling of distorted leaves) during the vegetative stage, slight to
moderate (curling of distorted leaves to yellowing or stripling of leaves) injury on the flowering

---

stage, and a moderate to slightly severe (yellowing or stripling of leaves to stunted plant growth
of plants) injury on the fruiting stage of the plant.
All insect found on Cape gooseberry belong to the minor pest category, while Broad
mites were classified as major pests.
The population of insects and other arthropods during the seedling stage was few, slightly
abundant to abundant on the vegetative stage, and abundant to severely abundant on the
flowering and fruiting stages of the plant.
The population of arthropods was most prominent was during the fruiting stages of the
plant.
ii

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS













Page

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………….. i

Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………. i

Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………..
iii


INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………........
1

REVIEW OF LITERATURE ……………………………………………………...
3

MATERIALS AND METHODS ………………………………………………….
7

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION …………………………………………………...
15

Identified Insects and Arthropods found
on Cape gooseberry Plant …………………………………………………. 15
Degree of Injury Inflicted by Insects
and other Arthropods on Cape
Gooseberry Plant ………………………………………………………….. 26
Major and Minor Pests of Cape
Gooseberry…………………………………………………………………. 28
Population of Insects and other arthropods
on the Seedling, Vegetative, Flowering,
and Fruiting stages of the Plant …………………………………………… 29
Stage of the Plant where Most Insect and
Other Arthropods Occur …………………………………………………... 29
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION …………………… 31
Summary …………………………………………………………………...
31
Conclusion……………………………………………………………….....
32
Recommendation…………………………………………………………..
33
LITERATURE CITED ……………………………………………………………. 34
APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………………..
35 

---

1

INTRODUCTION


Cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana Linnaeus) is a deciduous shrub which
grows fast under optimum conditions to 3 feet tall and six feet wide. It is a relatively
known plant under the family Solanaceae. Among its popular relatives which are being
grown are the eggplants and tomatoes (Anonymous, 2010).
Here in the Philippines, Cape gooseberry is locally known as “lobo-lobohan”. It is
widely distributed in the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) particularly in the
Benguet province (Philippine Medicinal Plants, 2010).
It bears an edible fruit or berry that is bell-shaped having a soft, lustrous and
orange-yellow exterior. Apart from being edible, the fruit also has many uses. Some are
used in culinary purposes as in preparing sauces, puddings, ice creams, salads, cocktails
and etc. Others are used as ornamentals and as an ingredient in making perfume (Morton
and Russel, 1990).
The fruit also contains many nutrients and vitamins. Reports show that the
bioflavonoids present in the fruit have an anti-inflamatory, anti-oxidant and anti-viral
properties (Chittendon, 1992).
In our locality, Cape gooseberries are not highly commercialized or marketed.
Only few farmers grow the plant and most are only cultivated on the backyard of houses
for family consumption. Hence, any records of insects associated with the plant have no
proper documentation. Likewise, due to the increasing demand of the Cape gooseberry
fruit, time will come when farmers will produce in a commercial scale (Das-ilen, 2010).
Since the Cape gooseberry belongs to the Solanaceous family, there are possibilities that
it can harbor the insect pests of its distant relatives like the tomatoes and eggplants.

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

2

Thus, one must have knowledge on the insects and other arthropods associated with the
crop in order to know the appropriate ways in controlling any potential pests that may
infest the plant and in order to know the proper ways in propagating it to obtain optimum
to maximum yield.

This study aimed to identify the insects and other arthropods found on Cape
gooseberry plants, to evaluate the degree of injury or damage inflicted by the different
insect species and other arthropods to the plant, to identify the major and minor pest of
Cape gooseberry, to record the population of the insect and other arthropod species, and
finally, to identify the growth stages of the Cape gooseberry where most insects and other
arthropods most occur.

The study was conducted at the Balili Entomology Experimental Area, Benguet
State University from September 2010 to January 2011.






















Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

3

REVIEW OF LITERATURE


History of Cape Gooseberry Cultivation

According to Morton (1987), the Cape gooseberry reportedly was native to Peru
and Chile, where the fruits are casually eaten and occasionally sold in

markets but the plant is still not an important crop, it has been widely

introduced into cultivation in other tropical, subtropical and even temperate

areas. It is said to succeed wherever tomatoes can be grown. The plant was grown by
early settlers at the Cape of Good Hope before 1807. Soon after its adaption
in the Cape of Good Hope it was carried to Australia and there acquired its
common English name. It was spread all over Europe and was brought by the
Spanish colonizers to the Philippines. It was naturalized on the islands of

Luzon. The seeds were then taken to Hawaii before 1825 and the plant is naturalized on
all the islands at medium and somewhat higher elevations.

Cape Gooseberry Characteristics


Cape gooseberry is a perennial herb about 5-2 m tall with purplish, ribbed and
spreading branches. The leaf is pointed towards the tip but irregularly round at the basal
end. Flower is yellow with five large dark-brown-purple spots. Fruit is orange-yellow and
round that may be the basis for its local name “lobo-lobohan” (balloon like). The fruit
which is technically called a berry has juicy pulp with very small seeds (PCCARD,
1992).





Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

4

Uses of Cape Gooseberry


Cape gooseberries have many known uses. As a food, it can be consumed alone
and it can be also used in preparing soups, ice creams, icings, sauces, wines, cocktails,
jams, yogurts, juices, and others. Food artisans also use them as a decoration in gourmet
foods to make it look more attractive. They add them in cakes and pastries as well as in
salads. Certain food processing companies process them into frozen, pulped, and canned
commodities (Morton and Russel, 1990).
In the science of medicine and Nutrition, Cape gooseberry is believed to have
ailment curing properties. In Colombia, the leaves are boiled into a decoction which is
believed to be diuretic and antiasthmatic. In South Africa, the leaves are heated and
applied as poultices on inflammations. The people of the Zulu tribe believe that infusion
made with the leaves relieve abdominal ailments in children. The fruit contains
antioxidants such as vitamin C as well as carotenoids and bioflavonoids, all of which
promote good health. Including the fruit as a part of our daily diet helps us to maintain
our heart, our vision, our immune system, and lowers the risk of cancers, malaria, asthma,
hepatitis, dermatitis and rheumatism. Though there were reports in Australia that the
unripe fruit are poisonous and is believed to have caused illness and deaths to cattle
(Ozweightloss, 2010).

Propagation of Cape Gooseberry


The plant is often propagated from seeds. However, germination is slow and
irregular. If early flowering is preferred, propagate by using mature stem cutting treated
with rooting hormone. The seeds are planted in raised seedbeds, manured well in
advance. The seeds are dibbled in rows; 10-15 cm apart and four to six seeds for every 10

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

5

cm. The seeds are covered with a thin layer of soil and water lightly. It is provided with
shade and mulch. Thin out weak seedlings and transplant after six to eight weeks. Plant
the seedling at desired spacing which ranges from 0.9 m x .45 to 1.8 m to 0.9 m. Widely
spaced plants produce bigger fruits while closely spaced plants bear smaller and more
numerous fruits. Fertilizers are applied at the rate of 50-100 g per plant with 5-13-5 NPK
at planting. Manure may also be applied. After planting, the soil must be cultivated taking
care not to damage the roots. Weeds must be controlled to prevent the fruit from touching
the ground. Water the plants during the dry season. After fruiting, plants may be made to
produce new shoots by severe pruning but yields from these shoots are very low. It is
therefore not economically advised to do this. It is much better to plant again in new area
(UPLB, 1992).

Diseases and Pests of Cape Gooseberry

Gooseberry shrubs are host plants for white pine blister rust fungus, a disease
harmful to pine trees. Thus, they should not be planted close to white pines (Jacobs,
1996).
In South Africa, the most troublesome diseases are powdery mildew and soft
brown scale. The plants are prone to root rots and viruses if on poorly-drained soil or if
carried over to a second year. Bacterial leaf spot occurs in Queensland. A strain of
tobacco mosaic virus affects plants in India (Morton, 1987).
Cape gooseberries have wide range of insect pests. In South Africa the Cape
gooseberries were attacked by cutworms, red spider, potato tuber moth, flea beetle and
whiteflies. It was also noted that the plants are attacked by stem borer, leaf borer, fruit
worm, and stripped cucumber beetle. In Peru, Broad mites, feed on the stem by sucking

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

6

the sap from the wound. This causes stunted growth, discolored leaves and deformed
young foliage. Solanaceous treehopper, thrips and various beetles also affect the Cape
gooseberry plants (Morton, 1987).
In the Benguet province, according to Das-ilen in 2010, due to the fact that the
Cape gooseberry belongs to the family Solanaceae, the Cape gooseberry could harbor
insect pests of its distant relatives such as the tomatoes and the eggplants. Some known
pests of the tomatoes and eggplants which can become potential pests of the Cape
gooseberry include the 28-spotted beetles, aphids, fruit worm, and whiteflies (Morton,
1987).

Yield of Cape Gooseberry


According to Ligat Sr. (2010), a grower of Cape gooseberry, the yield of Cape
gooseberry in La Trinidad, Benguet is very good. The conditions present in the locality
are favorable to the plant. These circumstances enable the plant to provide optimum to
maximum yield. With its growing potential in the market, it is seen to provide more profit
to the farmers.
















Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

7

METHODOLOGY


The materials used in this study were seedlings of Cape Gooseberry, small
pricking pots, plastic watering can, chicken manure fertilizers, nylon ropes, tape measure,
stereo zome microscope, holing device, entomology books and compendiums, digital
camera, and other recording materials. The area before and after planting is shown in
Figures 1 and 2.

Preparation of Materials


The seedlings were first planted into small plastic pots with a diameter of 15-20
cm for 6-8 weeks (Figure 3). The seedlings were allowed to establish and were
maintained in a cool dry place for at least one month to provide suitable conditions for
the development of the seedlings. Meanwhile, an area of 400 sq. meters of untilled plots
where the matured seedlings were transplanted was prepared in advance as shown in
Figure 3. Holes with a depth of about 40 cm were dug at the center of the plot using a
holing device and were assured to have a one meter distance from on hole to another
(Figure 5 and 6) by using a tape measure. Nylon ropes was also used as a guide to align
the holes into straight lines and the dug soil was placed just beside the hole for this
method employs the organic way of planting wherein minimum tillage is applied as
shown in Figures 7 and 8.

Planting of the Seedlings


The matured seedling was transplanted in plots measuring 1 m by 10 m (Figures 8
to 11). The distance of one seedling from one another was 100 cm in between holes and
200 cm between hills or just every other plot. The plant was provided with 200 g of

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

8


Figure 1. The study area before planting Figure 2. The study area after planting



Figure 3. Pricking of seedlings Figure 4. Removal of obstruction in the
planting area



Figure 5. Digging of holes with the use of Figure 6. The dug soil beside the hole
holing device

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

9



Figure 7. Measuring one meter distance Figure 8. Pouring of approximately 200 g
from one hole to another with of vermicompost in the hole
the use of tape measure before planting


compost (firmed) and was watered after transplanting as shown in Figure 12. It was
fertilized with fermented chicken manure two months from transplanting (Figure 13).

Observation of the Cape Gooseberry Plant
The plants were visually observation and scouted two weeks after planting and it
was done once a week. Every insect and other arthropods spotted on the plant were
observed and photo documented together with its injury on the plant if present (Figure
14).

Identification of Insects and other
Arthropods

One sample from each of the arthropods scouted within the plant was collected.
Collected arthropods were brought to the laboratory for proper identification and were
classified according to their mouthparts as either chewing or piercing-sucking and
whether they are pest, beneficial and visitors. The observed benefits or damage of the
arthropods to the plant were also enumerated.

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

10

Population of Insects and other Arthropods


The population of the insects and other arthropods was observed through visual
estimates. The evaluation of arthropod population took place before the onset of the
vegetative, flowering, and fruiting stages of the plant. The criteria followed in visually
estimating the arthropod populations on the plants as prepared by the researcher were as
follows:















Figure 9. The uprooted cape gooseberry Figure 10. The vermicompostt soil firmed
seedling ready for planting by pressing















Figure 11. The newly planted cape Figure 12. Watering of the newly planted
Gooseberry cape gooseberry.

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

11




Figure 13. Preparation of fermented Figure 14. Observation and
chicken manure used in photodocumentation of
watering the plants arthropods and its injury


Scale
Index
Description

1


Absent

0 population per plant

3


Few

1 – 10 population per plant

5

Slightly abundant

11 – 20 population per plant

7


Abundant

21 – 30 population per plant

9

Severely abundant
31 – onwards population per plant

Identifying the Growth Stage of the Cape Gooseberry
where most Arthropods Occur


The stages of the plant development (as whether seedling, vegetative, flowering,
and fruiting) wherein the visually estimated population of insects and other arthropods
has the highest were identified as the stage where insects most occur.

Evaluation of the Degree of Injury Inflicted by the
Species of Insects and other Arthropods


Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

12

The degree of injury inflicted by the insects and other arthropods to the plant and
fruit was evaluated based on the damage done by the chewing or piercing-sucking
insects. The arthropods that were categorized as chewing were the arthropods that were
seen directly feeding on plant parts by nibbling or chewing and the arthropods that were
categorized as piercing-sucking were the arthropods that were observed sucking the plant
parts for their subsistence.
The amount of plant part damaged by the chewing insects was rated by
percentage through visual estimates following the rating scales below:
Scale Index Description
1 Sound No injury

3 Slight 1-25% injury on plants

5 Moderate 26-50% injury on plants

7 Slightly severe 51-75% injury on plants
9 Severe 76-100% injury on plants

The degree of injury inflicted by the piercing-sucking arthropods were rated by
visual estimates following the rating scales below:
Scale Index Description
1 Sound No injury

3 Slight Curling of distorted leaves

5 Moderate Yellowing or stripling of leaves

7 Slightly severe Stunted growth of plants
9 Severe Wilting of plants


Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

13





Identification of the Major and Minor Pest
of Cape Gooseberry

Chewing insects which inflicted a degree of injury from 1-50% were considered
as minor pests and those had an injury from 51-100% were considered as major pests.
Piercing-sucking insects which inflicted sound, slight, and moderate damage to the plant
were considered as minor pests. Those which inflicted slightly severe and severe damage
to the plant were considered as major pests.

Data Gathered

1. Insect species. This was the classification of the insects and other arthropods
that fed on the Cape gooseberry plant.
2. Degree of injury. This was the amount of plant parts eaten by the arthropods
based on the percentage scale.
3. Major and minor pest. This were the insects which either had minimal or
severe damage to the plant.
4. Insect population. This were the number of each of the insect species
encountered during the period of the study.
5. Growth stages of the cape gooseberry where insects and other arthropods most
occur. This was the developmental stage of the plant when most arthropods were present.




Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

14

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Identified Insects and Arthropods
found on Cape gooseberry Plant

There were 30 organisms found on the Cape gooseberry plant during the study. It
comprised of 24 insects and six other arthropods. The Chewing insects and other
arthropods were Elm leaf beetle (Figure 15), Chrysomelid beetle (Figure 16), Earwigs
(Figure 17), Fruit worm (Figure 18), Fruit fly larvae (Figure 19), Leaf miner (Figure 20),
and earthworm (Figure 21). The piercing-sucking insects and other arthropods were
Aphids (Figures 22 and 23), Whitefly (Figure 24), Thrips (Figure 25), Leaf hopper
(Figure 26), Leaf footed bug (Figure 27), and Broad mite (Figure 28). The beneficial
insects and other arthropods were Soldier bug (Figure 29), Spined soldier bug (Figure
30), Coccinellid beetles (Figures 31 and 32), Spider ant (Figure 33), and Spiders (Figures
34, 35 and 36). The visitors were Grasshopper (Figure 37), Katydid (Figure 38), Long-
horned grasshopper (Figure 39), Fruit fly (Figure 40), Sepsid fly (Figure 41), Midges
(Figure 42), Cranefly (Figure 43), and Hover fly (Figure 44).





Figure 15. (a) Leaf injured by adult (b) elm
leaf beetle (8x)

Order: COLEOPTERA

b
Family: CHRYSOMELIDAE
Scientific name: Poneridia australis Linnaeus
Common name: Elm leaf beetle
Classification: PEST
Type of Mouthparts: CHEWING

Injury: Create irregular holes on the leaf.
Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

15









Figure 16. (c) Injured leaf by (a and b) adult
chrysomelid beetles (10x)

c
Order: COLEOPTERA
Family: CHRYSOMELIDAE
Scientific name: Monolepta australis
Linnaeus
Common name: Chrysomelid beetle
Classification: PEST
Type of Mouthparts: CHEWING
Injury: The (a) orange and (b) red
Chrysomelid beetles create irregular holes
on the leaf.
a
b




Figure 17. (a) Injured fruit by adult
(b)earwigs (10x)
Order: DERMAPTERA
Family: LABIDURIDAE
b
Scientific name: Anisolabis maritime
Bonelli
Common name: Earwigs
Classification: PEST
a
Type of mouthparts: CHEWING
Injury: Nymph and adult nibbles on the fruit
causing fruit injury.






Figure 18. (a) Injured fruit by (b) fruit worm
larvae (10x)
Order: LEPIDOPTERA

b
Family: NOCTUIDAE
Scientific name: Heliothis zea Linnaeus
Common name: Fruit worm larvae

Classification: PEST
Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN
Type of mo
JOE P. E
uthparts: C LADJ
HEW OE 2011
ING


Injury: Nibbles on the fruit causing holed
or scraped fruit.

---

16



a






Figure 19. (a) Injured fruit by (b) fruit fly
larvae (10x)
Order: DIPTERA
b
Family: TEPHRITIDAE
Scientific name: Bactrocera dorsalis

a
Hendel
Common name: Fruit fly larvae
Classification: PEST
Type of mouthparts: CHEWING (larvae)
Injury: Eats the fruit from the inside out
which causes it to rot.






a
Figure 20. (b) Injury of (a) leaf miner larvae
on the leaf (10x)
Order: DIPTERA
Family: AGROMYZIDAE
Scientific name: Liriomyza sativae
Blanchard
Common name: Leaf miner
Classification: PEST
Type of mouthparts: CHEWING (larvae)
b
Injury: Causes irregular lines on the
surface of the leaf.











Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

17


Figure 21. (a) Injury of (b) giant earthworm
b
(10x)
Order: HAPLOTAXIDA
Family: LUMBRICIDAE
Scientific name: Lumbricus sp.
Common name: Earthworm
Classification: PEST
Type of mouthparts: CHEWING

a
Injury: Burrows and feeds on the
vermicompost fertilizer.



Figure 22. (a) Injury on the fruit by adult
(b) aphid (10x)
Order: HEMIPTERA
Family: APHIDIDAE
a
Scientific name: Myzus cerasi Linnaeus
Common name: Aphid
Classification: PEST
Type of mouthparts: PIERCING-
SUCKING
Injury: Sucks the fruit juices but it does
not put much injury in the plant. Instead, it
makes the fruit filthy.





Figure 23. Adult aphid on fruit (10x)

Order: HEMIPTERA

Family: APHIDIDAE

Scientific name: Acyrthosiphon pisum

Linnaeus

Common name: Aphid

Classification: PEST

Type of mouthparts:
PIERCING-

SUCKING

Injury: Sucks the sap of the plant which

the plant was able to tolerate and is found

on fruits and leaves.

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

18


Figure 24. (a) Injury of adult (b) whiteflies
b
on leaves (10x)
Order: HEMIPTERA
Family: ALEYRODIDAE
Scientific name: Trialeurodes
vaporariorum Linnaeus
Common name: White fly
Classification: PEST
a
Type of mouthparts: PIERCING-
SUCKING
Injury: Adults suck the sap of the plant
which turns the leaves to yellow. They are
found on the underside of leaves.
Figure 25. (a) Injury of adult (b) thrips on
leaves (10x)
Order: THYSANOPTERA

a
Family: THRIPIDAE
Scientific name: Thrips tabaci Lindeman
Common name: Thrips
Classification: PEST
Type of mouthparts: PIERCING-
SUCKING
Injury: Adults and nymph suck the sap of
b
the leaves causing it to curl.





Figure 26. Adult leafhopper on the leaves
(10x)
Order: HEMIPTERA
Family: CICADELLIDAE
Scientific name: Cofania sp. Linnaeus
Common name: Leaf hopper
Classification: PEST
Type of mouthparts: PIERCING-
SUCKING
Injury: Sucks the sap of the plant but
inflicts less damage. They are found on the
leaves.




Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

19


Figure 27. Adult leaf footed bug on the
leaves (10x)
Order: HEMIPTERA
Family: PENTATOMIDAE
Scientific name: Acanthocephala
terminalis Linnaeus
Common name: Leaf footed bug
Classification: PEST
Type of mouthparts: PIERCING-
SUCKING
Injury: Sucks the sap of the plant and
are found on the leaves.

Figure 28. (a) Injury on the plant by the
adult of (b) broad mite (25x)
Order: TROMBIDIFORMES
Family: TARSONEMIDAE
Scientific name: Polyphagotarsonemus

a
latus Linnaeus
Common name: Broad mite
Classification: PEST
Type of mouthparts: PIERCING-
SUCKING
Injury: Sucks the plant juices which lead
to bronzing and cause curling of leaves.



Figure 29. Adult of soldier bug on the leaves
(10x)
Order: HEMIPTERA
Family: PENTATOMIDAE
Scientific name: Halyomorpha sp. Linnaeus
Classification: BENEFICIAL
Common name: Soldier bug
Type of mouthparts: PIERCING-SUCKING
Benefit: Sucks the body fluid of insects such
as aphids, and larvae.








Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

20


Figure 30. Adult of spined soldier bug on the
leaves (12x)
Order: HEMIPTERA
Family: PENTATOMIDAE
Scientific name: Podisus maculivertris
Linnaeus
Common name: Spined soldier bug
Classification: BENEFICIAL
Type of mouthparts: PIERCING-
SUCKING
Benefit: Sucks the body fluid of insects
such as aphids, and larvae.


Figure 31. Adult of coccinellid beetle (10x)
Order: COLEOPTERA
Family: COCCINELLIDAE
Scientific name: Coccinella transversalis
Linnaeus
Common name: Lady bird beetle
Classification: BENEFICIAL
Type of mouthparts: CHEWING
Predation: Larvae and adult hunt for
aphids, mites, and thrips for prey.






Figure 32. Adult of coccinellid beetle (10x)
Order: COLEOPTERA
Family: COCCINELLIDAE
Scientific name: Harmonia axyridis
Linnaeus
Common name: Lady bird beetle
Classification: BENEFICIAL
Type of mouthparts: CHEWING
Predation: Larvae and adult hunt for
aphids, mites, and thrips for prey.






Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

21


Figure 33. (a) Adult spider ant feeding on
(b) midges (10x)
Order: ARANEAE
Family: SALTICIDAE
Scientific name: Myrmarachne sp.
a
Linnaeus
Common name: Spider ant
Classification: BENEFICIAL
Type of mouthparts: CHEWING
Predation: Hunts small insects as
b
prey such as midges.



Figure 34. Adult spider on the plant (10x)
Order: ARANEAE
Family: ARANEIDAE
Scientific name: unknown
Common name: Spider
Classification: BENEFICIAL
Type of mouthparts: SUCKING
Predation: Sucks soft bodied insects
captured on its web such as midges.







Figure 35. Adult spider on the leaves (15x)
Order: ARANEAE
Family: THERIDIIDAE
Scientific name: unknown
Common name: Spider
Classification: BENEFICIAL
Type of mouthparts: SUCKING
Predation: Predates on soft bodied insect
such as thrips and aphids.







Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

22


Figure 36. Adult spider on the leaves (15x)
Order: ARANEAE
Family: THERIDIIDAE
Scientific name: unknown
Common name: Spider
Classification: BENEFICIAL
Type of mouthparts: SUCKING
Predation: Predates on soft bodied insect
such as thrips and aphids.



Figure 37. Adult grasshopper resting on
leaves (10x)
Order: ORTHOPTERA
Family: ACRIDIDAE
Scientific name: Melanoplus
differentialis Linnaeus
Common name: Grasshopper
Classification: VISITOR
Type of mouthparts: CHEWING
Injury: No injury was found to be
inflicted by the grasshopper. It was just
resting. Although they are known as
pests in other crops such as lettuce.



Figure 38. Adult katydid resting on the
leaves (10x)
Order: ORTHOPTERA
Family: TETTIGONIIDAE
Scientific name: Torbia viridissima
Linnaeus
Common name: Grasshopper
Classification: VISITOR
Type of mouthparts: CHEWING
Injury: No injury was found to be
inflicted by the insect. It was just
resting. Although they are known as
pests in other crops such as lettuce.


Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

23



Figure 39. Adult long-horned grasshoppeer
resting on the leaves (10x)
Order: ORTHOPTERA
Family: TETTIGONIIDAE
Scientific name: Conocephalous sp.
Linnaeus
Common name: Grasshoppeer
Classification: VISITOR
Type of mouthparts: CHEWING
Injury: No injury was found to be
inflicted by the insect. It was just resting.
Although they are known as pests in other
crops such as lettuce and beans.

Figure 40. Adult fruit fly resting on the plant
(10x)
Order: DIPTERA
Family: TEPHRITIDAE
Scientific name: Tephritis sp. Linnaeus
Common name: Fruit fly
Classification: VISITOR
Type of mouthparts: CHEWING (larva)
Injury: The adults were seen resting on the
plant but there was no sign of its larvae
infesting the fruit. Its larva is considered
as pest in mangoes, bell pepper and other
crops.



Figure 41. Adult sepsid fly resting on the
plant (10x)
Order: DIPTERA
Figur
Fam e 30. Midge
mily: SEPSID s (12x).
DAE
Scientific name: Sepsis cynipsea
Linnaeus
Common name: Sepsid fly
Figur
Clas e 31. Leaf m
sification: V iner (20x).
VISITOR


Type of mouthparts: SPONGING
Figur
Injur e 32. Crane
ry: No injur fly (10x).
ry. Most are seen resting
on the plant. Most are known as
saprophage.



Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

24



Figure 42. Adult midges resting on the
leaves (10x)
Order: DIPTERA
Family: CERAPTOPOGONIDAE
Scientific name: Culicoides impunctatus
Linnaeus
Common name: Midges
Classification: VISITOR
Type of mouthparts: PIERCING-
SUCKING
Injury: No injury. Most are seen resting on
the plant.

Figure 43. Adult cranefly resting on the
leaves (10x)
Order: DIPTERA
Family: TIPULIDAE
Scientific name: Tipula sp. Linnaeus
Common name: Crane fly
Classification: VISITOR
Type of mouthparts: SNOUT
Injury: Most are seen resting on the
plant. Adults barely feed.






Figure 44. Adult of hover fly (10x)
Order: DIPTERA
Family: SYRPHIDAE
Scientific name: Taxomerus geminates
Linnaeus
Common name: Hover fly
Classification: BENEFICIAL
Type of mouthparts: SPONGING
(adult)
Injury: No injury inflicted on the plant.
Although, the larvae feed on insects
such as aphids and thrips.




Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

25

Degree of Injury Inflicted by Insects
and other Arthropods on the Cape
Gooseberry Plant

The chewing insects and other arthropods had a sound to slight (zero to 25%)
injury on the plant during the seedling, vegetative, flowering and fruiting stages of the
plant with a mean of one on the seedling stage, 1.36 on the vegetative stage, 1.53 on the
flowering stage, and a mean of two during the fruiting stage. Thus, the plant was able to
tolerate the injury made by the chewing arthropods during the seedling, vegetative,
flowering, and fruiting stages of the plant. Furthermore, the injury inflicted by the
chewing arthropods significantly increased from the seedling stage to the vegetative stage
of the plant. However, the injury of the chewing arthropods remained the same during the
vegetative and the flowering stage. As the plant matures to the fruiting stage, the degree
of injury further increased as shown in Table 1. The most injurious chewing arthropod
identified was the Fruit worm larvae as also mentioned by Morton in 1987.
The piercing-sucking insects and other arthropods scouted and observed on the
Cape gooseberry plant inflicted a sound (no injury) during the seedling stage which has a
mean of one. The piercing-sucking arthropods inflicted sound to slight (no injury to
curling of distorted leaves) during the vegetative stage which had a mean of 2.21. During
the flowering stage, the piercing-sucking insects inflicted slight to moderate (curling of
distorted leaves to yellowing or stripling of leaves) injury on the plant with a mean of
3.85 and during the fruiting stage, the piercing-sucking insects inflicted a moderate to
slightly severe (yellowing or stripling of leaves to stunted plant growth of plants) injury
with a mean of 6.25 which affected the proper growth of the plant. Moreover, the degree
of injury of the piercing-sucking insect significantly increased every time the plant

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

26

Table 1. The mean injury of chewing arthropods on the different growth stages of the
cape gooseberry plants

PLANT
SEEDLING
VEGETATIVE
FLOWERING FRUITINGSTAGE
SAMPLE
STAGE
STAGE
STAGE

1 1.00 1.57 2.00
2.50
2 1.00 1.57 2.00
2.50
3 1.00 1.00 1.00
2.25
4 1.00 1.57 1.50
1.75
5 1.00 1.29 1.50
2.25
6 1.00 1.29 2.00
2.00
7 1.00 1.00 1.50
1.75
8 1.00 1.57 1.50
2.00
9 1.00 1.29 1.00
2.00
10 1.00 1.29
1.50
1.75
11 1.00 1.57
1.00
2.00
12 1.00 1.00
2.00
2.25
13 1.00 1.86
1.00
1.50
14 1.00 1.00
1.50
1.75
15 1.00 1.00
1.50
1.50
16 1.00 1.57
1.50
2.50
17 1.00 1.86
1.50
1.75
18 1.00 1.29
2.00
2.00
19 1.00 1.29
1.50
1.75
20 1.00 1.29
1.50
2.25
MEAN 1.00c 1.36b 1.53b
2a


matures from the seedling up to the fruiting stages of the plant as presented on Table 2.
The most injurious was the Broad mite which resulted to the stunted growth of the plant,
discolored leaves, and deformed young foliage as also mentioned by Morton (1987) in
Peru.







Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

27

Table 2. The mean injury of piercing-sucking arthropods on the different growth stages of
cape gooseberry plants
PLANT
SEEDLING
FRUITING
FLOWERING
FRUITING
SAMPLE
STAGE
STAGE
STAGE
STAGE
1 1.00 2.14 4.00 6.25
2 1.00 2.43 3.50 6.25
3 1.00 1.86 4.00 6.25
4 1.00 2.43 4.00 6.25
5 1.00 2.14 4.00 6.25
6 1.00 2.43 3.50 6.25
7 1.00 2.43 4.00 6.25
8 1.00 2.43 4.00 6.25
9 1.00 1.86 4.00 6.25
10 1.00 2.14 3.50 6.25
11 1.00 2.43 4.00 6.25
12 1.00 2.14 4.00 6.25
13 1.00 2.43 3.50 6.25
14 1.00 1.86 3.50 6.25
15 1.00 2.43 4.00 6.25
16 1.00 2.14 4.00 6.25
17 1.00 2.14 4.00 6.25
18 1.00 2.43 3.50 6.25
19 1.00 2.14 4.00 6.25
20 1.00 1.86 4.00 6.25
MEAN 1.00d 2.21c 3.85b 6.25a

Major and Minor Pests of Cape Gooseberry

The chewing arthropods had a mean of one, 1.36, 1.53, and two during the
seedling up to the fruiting stages of the plant which inflicted a damage that is well below
50% (Table 2). Therefore, the chewing arthropods were categorized as minor pests of the
Cape gooseberry plant.
The piercing-sucking arthropods had a mean of one during the seedling stage,
2.21 mean during the vegetative stage, 3.85 mean during flowering stage, and 6.25 during
the fruiting stage of the plant (Table 2) which means that the piercing-sucking insects
inflicted sound to slight injury to the plant. Therefore, the piercing-sucking arthropods

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

28

were categorized as minor pests. However, the damage inflicted by the Broad mite which
caused stunting of the plant was clearly visible (Figure 27). Hence, it was classified as a
major pest of the Cape gooseberry plant.

Population of Insects and other Arthropods
on the Seedling, Vegetative, Flowering,
and Fruiting Stages of the Plant

Total population of insects and other arthropods during the seedling stage was few
(zero to 10) on the rating scale with a mean of 2.13. In the vegetative stage, there were
slightly abundant to abundant (11 to 30) population of arthropods per plant with a mean
of 5.32. In the flowering stages of the plant, there were abundant to severely abundant (21
to 31) population of arthropods per plant and during the fruiting stage of the plant, there
were also an abundant to severely abundant population of arthropod per plant with a
mean of 8.61. Moreover, the population of arthropods significantly increased every time
the plant matures from the seedling up to the fruiting stages of the plant as presented on
Table 3.

Stage of the Plant where Most Insect and
Other Arthropods Occur
The stage of the plant wherein the population of arthropods was most prominent
was during the fruiting stages of the plant which had a mean of 8.61. Meaning, there were
abundant to severely abundant population of insects and other arthropods per plant
compared to the flowering stage which had an abundant to severely abundant population
of insects and other arthropods per plant with a mean of 8.25; and compared to the
vegetative stage which had a slightly abundant to abundant population of insects and
other arthropods per plant with a mean of 5.32; and to the seedling stage which have a

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

29

few population of insects and other arthropods per plant with a mean of one. Most species
of insects and other arthropods which were observed previously on the seedling stage of
the plant remained until the fruiting stages. As the plant continued to grow, the same
species of arthropods found in the plant thrives. Some of the arthropods classified as
visitors and pest such as the Earthworm (Figure 21), Crane fly (Figure 41), and Midges
(Figure 42) were only present on the plant in one or two particular stages of the plant.

Table 3. Average population of arthropods during the seedling, vegetative, flowering
and fruiting stages of cape gooseberry
PLANT
SEEDLING
VEGETATIVE
FLOWERING
FRUITING
SAMPLE
STAGE
STAGE
STAGE
STAGE
1 2.00 5.29 8.00 8.50
2 2.00 5.86 8.00 8.50
3 2.50 5.57 8.50 8.75
4 2.00 5.57 8.50 8.50
5 1.50 5.29 8.00 9.00
6 2.50 5.29 8.50 8.75
7 2.00 5.00 8.50 8.25
8 2.00 4.71 8.50 8.75
9 2.50 5.57 8.00 8.75
10 2.00 5.86
8.00 8.50
11 2.50 5.29
8.50 8.75
12 2.00 5.57
8.00 8.50
13
2.50
5.57
8.00
8.75
14
1.50
5.29
8.00
8.50
15
2.50
5.29
8.50
8.50
16
1.50
4.71
8.50
8.75
17
2.50
5.29
8.50
8.50
18
2.50
5.29
8.00
8.75
19
1.50
5.00
8.50
8.50
20
2.50
5.00
8.00
8.50
MEAN 2.13d 5.32c 8.25b 8.61a






Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

30

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Summary

The study was conducted at the Balili Entomology Experimental Area, Benguet
State University from September 2010 to January 2011. This study aimed to identify the
insects and other arthropods found on Cape gooseberry plants, to evaluate the degree of
injury or damage inflicted by the different insect species and other arthropods to the
plant, to identify the major and minor pest of Cape gooseberry, to record the population
of the insect and other arthropod species, and finally, to identify the growth stages of the
Cape gooseberry where most insects and other arthropods most occur.
The Chewing insects and other arthropods were Elm leaf beetle, Chrysomelid
beetle, Earwigs, Fruit worm larvae, Fruit fly larvae, Leaf miner, and earthworm. The
piercing-sucking insects and other arthropods were Aphids, Whitefly, Thrips, Leaf
hopper, Leaf footed bug, and Broad mite. The beneficial insects and other arthropods
were Soldier bug, Spined soldier bug, Coccinellid beetles, Spider ant, and Spiders. The
visitors were Grasshopper, Katydid, Long-horned grasshopper, Fruit fly, Sepsid fly,
Midges, Crane fly, and Hover fly.

The chewing insects and other arthropods had a sound to slight (zero to 25%)
injury on the plant during the seedling, vegetative, flowering and fruiting stages of the
plant with a mean of one on the seedling stage, 1.36 mean on the vegetative stage, 1.53
mean on the flowering stage, and a mean of two during the fruiting stage while the
piercing-sucking insects and other arthropods had a sound (no injury) during the seedling
stage which has a mean of one, sound to slight (no injury to curling of distorted leaves)
during the vegetative stage with a mean of 2.21, slight to moderate (curling of distorted

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

31

leaves to yellowing or stripling of leaves) injury on the flowering stage with a mean of
3.85, and a moderate to slightly severe (yellowing or stripling of leaves to stunted plant
growth of plants) injury with a mean of 6.25 on the fruiting stage of the plant.
The identified chewing and piercing-sucking insects were categorized as minor
pests of the Cape gooseberry plant. However, the damage inflicted by the Broad mite
which caused stunting of the plant was clearly visible. Hence, it was classified as a major
pest of the Cape gooseberry plant.
The population of insects and other arthropods during the seedling stage was few,
slightly abundant to abundant on the vegetative stage, and abundant to severely abundant
on the flowering and fruiting stages of the plant.
The stage of the plant wherein the population of arthropods was most prominent
was during the fruiting stages of the plant which had a mean of 8.61. Compared to the
flowering, vegetative, and seedling stages of the plant which had a mean of 8.25, 5.32,
and 2.31, respectively.

Conclusion

In La Trinidad, Benguet, many injurious arthropods are associated with the Cape
gooseberry (Physalis peruviana Linnaeus) plant. However, each also has coinciding
natural enemies which keep their population in check. Furthermore, it harbored pests of
its distant relatives in the Solanacea family like the tomatoes and potatoes. Harbored
pests includes: Whiteflies, Thrips, Fruit worm larvae, and Chrysomelid beetles.




Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

32

Recommendation

It is therefore recommended that the Cape gooseberry plant should be cultivated
in distant places away from its relatives such as the tomato, potato, and eggplant to
discourage the migration of pest to the Cape gooseberry plant to prevent infestation and
damage.





































Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

33

LITERATURE CITED


ANONYMOUS.
2010.
Retrieved
August 09 , 2010 from
http://www.herbs2000.com/herbs/herbs_cape_gooseberry.htm

CHITTENDON, F. 1992. RHS Dictionary of Plants plus Suppliment: Plants for a future

Retrieved August 9, 2010 from http://www.pfaf.org/user/Plant-aspx?LatinName=
Physalis+peruviana

DAS-ILEN, G. S. 2010. Possible Insect Pest of Cape gooseberry in La Trinidad, Benguet.
(personal interview).

JACOBS, P. W. 1996. The World Book Encyclopedia. Chicago: World Book Inc. P. 271.

LIGAT, B. SR. 2010. Yield of Cape gooseberry in La Trinidad, Benguet. (personal
interview).

MORTON, J. F. 1987. Fruits of Warm Climates. Winterville, USA: Creative Resources

System Inc. Pp. 430-434.

MORTON, J. F. and O. S. RUSSEL. 1990. Cape Gooseberry: A fruit with Therapeutic

Properties. Winterville, USA: Creative Resources System Inc. Pp. 261-266.

OZWEIGHTLOSS. 2010. The Cape gooseberry: A fruit with therapeutic properties.

Retrieved August 11, 2010 from http://ozweightloss.com/the-cape-gooseberry-a
fruit-with-therapeutic-properties.html.

PCCARD. 1992. Edible Fruits and Nuts. Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and
Natural Resources Reserch nd Development. P. 2.

PHILIPPINE MEDICINAL PLANTS. 2010. Lobo-lobohan. Retrieved August 09, 2010
from http://www.stuartxchange.org/Lobo-lobohan.html

UPLB. 1992. Edible Fruits and Nuts. University of the Philippines Los Baños. P. 3.



APPENDICES

Appendix Table 1. Mean injury of chewing arthropods during the seedling stage of the
cape gooseberry plant
PLANT
REP 1
REP 2
REP 3
REP 4
TOTAL
MEAN
SAMPLE

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

34

1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
17 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
18 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
.

Appendix Table 2. Mean injury of chewing arthropods during the vegetative stage of the
cape gooseberry plant
PLANT
REP
REP
REP
REP
REP
REP
REP TOTAL MEAN
SAMPLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 11.00 1.57
2
1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 11.00 1.57
3
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 1.00
4
1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 11.00 1.57
5
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 9.00 1.29
6
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 9.00 1.29
7
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 1.00
8
1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 11.00 1.57
9
1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.29
10
3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.29
11
1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 11.00 1.57
Appendix Table 2. Continued.
12
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 1.00
13
1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 13.00 1.86
14
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 1.00
15
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 1.00
16
1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 11.00 1.57

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

35

17
3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 13.00 1.86
18
1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.29
19
1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.29
20
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.29


Appendix Table 3. Mean injury of chewing arthropods during the flowering stage of the
cape gooseberry plant
PLANT
REP 1
REP 2
REP 3
REP 4
TOTAL
MEAN
SAMPLE
1 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 8.00 2.00
2 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 8.00 2.00
3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
4 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 1.50
5 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 1.50
6 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 2.00
7 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 6.00 1.50
8 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 6.00 1.50
9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
10 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 6.00 1.50
11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
12 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 8.00 2.00
13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
14 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 1.50
15 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 1.50
16 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 1.50
17 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 6.00 1.50
18 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 8.00 2.00
19 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 1.50
20 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 1.50



Appendix Table 4. Mean injury of chewing arthropods during the fruiting stage of the
cape gooseberry plant
PLANT
REP REP REP REP REP REP REP REP TOTAL MEAN
SAMPLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 20.00 2.50
2
3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 20.00 2.50
3
1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 18.00 2.25
4
1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 14.00 2.75
5
1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 18.00 2.25
6
3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 16.00 2.00

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

36

7
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 14.00 1.75
8
1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 16.00 2.00
9
1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 16.00 2.00
10
1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 14.00 1.75
11
3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 16.00 2.00
12
3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 18.00 2.25
13
1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 12.00 1.50
14
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 14.00 1.75
15
1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 12.00 1.50
16
3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 20.00 2.50
17
1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 14.00 1.75
18
1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 16.00 2.00
19
3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 14.00 1.75
20
3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 18.00 2.25


Appendix Table 5. The mean injury of chewing arthropods on cape gooseberry plant
PLANT
SEEDLING
VEGETATIVE
FLOWERING FRUITINGSTAGE
SAMPLE
STAGE
STAGE
STAGE

1 1 1.57 2
2.5
2 1 1.57 2
2.5
3 1
1
1
2.25
4 1 1.57 1.5 1.75
5 1 1.29 1.5 2.25
6 1 1.29 2
2
7 1
1
1.5 1.75
8 1 1.57 1.5
2
9 1 1.29 1
2
10 1 1.29 1.5
1.75
11 1 1.57
1
2
12 1
1
2
2.25
13 1 1.86
1
1.5

Appendix Table 5. Continued.
14 1
1
1.5
1.75
15 1
1
1.5
1.5
16 1 1.57
1.5
2.5
17 1 1.86
1.5
1.75
18 1 1.29
2
2
19 1 1.29
1.5
1.75
20 1 1.29
1.5
2.25
TOTAL 20
27.17
30.50
40
MEAN 1c 1.36b 1.53b
2a
SD 0 0.276
0.343
0.314

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

37

RANGE
1
1.36 ± 0.062
1.53 ± 0.077
2.00 ± 0.070

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TREATMENTS COMPUTED
T
SEEDLING STAGE
0 ns
VEGETATIVE STAGE
10.757 *
FLOWERING STAGE
24.997 *
FRUITING STAGE
60. 503 *
ns = not significant
* = significant


Appendix Table 6. Mean injury of piercing-sucking arthropods during the seedling stage
of the cape gooseberry plant

PLANT
REP 1
REP 2
REP 3
REP 4
TOTAL
MEAN
SAMPLE
1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
17 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
18 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00
20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00

Appendix Table 7. Mean injury of piercing-sucking arthropods during the vegetative
stage of the cape gooseberry plant

PLANT
REP
REP
REP
REP
REP
REP
REP TOTAL MEAN
SAMPLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 15.00 2.14
2
1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 17.00 2.43
3
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 13.00 1.86
4
1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 17.00 2.43
5
1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 15.00 2.14

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

38

6
1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 17.00 2.43
7
1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 17.00 2.43
8
1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 17.00 2.43
9
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 13.00 1.86
10
1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 15.00 2.14
11
1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 17.00 2.43
12
1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 15.00 2.14
13
1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 17.00 2.43
14
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 13.00 1.86
15
1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 17.00 2.43
16
1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 15.00 2.14
17
1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 15.00 2.14
18
1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 17.00 2.43
19
1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 15.00 2.14
20
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 13.00 1.86


Appendix table 8. Mean injury of piercing-sucking arthropods during the flowering
stage of the cape gooseberry plant
PLANT
REP 1
REP 2
REP 3
REP 4
TOTAL
MEAN
SAMPLE
1 3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 16.00 4.00
2 3.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 14.00 3.50
3 3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 16.00 4.00
4 3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 16.00 4.00
5 3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 16.00 4.00
6 3.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 14.00 3.50
7 3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 16.00 4.00
8 3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 16.00 4.00
9 3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 16.00 4.00
10 3.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 14.00 3.50
11 3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 16.00 4.00
12 3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 16.00 4.00
13 3.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 14.00 3.50
Appendix Table 8. Continued.

14 3.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 14.00 3.50
15 3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 16.00 4.00
16 3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 16.00 4.00
17 3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 16.00 4.00
18 3.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 14.00 3.50
19 3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 16.00 4.00
20 3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 16.00 4.00


Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

39


Appendix Table 9. Mean injury of piercing-sucking arthropods during the fruiting stage
of the cape gooseberry plant

PLANT
REP REP REP REP REP REP REP REP TOTAL MEAN
SAMPLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 50.00 6.25
2
5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 50.00 6.25
3
5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 50.00 6.25
4
5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 50.00 6.25
5
5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 50.00 6.25
6
5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 50.00 6.25
7
5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 50.00 6.25
8
5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 50.00 6.25
9
5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 50.00 6.25
10
5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 50.00 6.25
11
5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 50.00 6.25
12
5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 50.00 6.25
13
5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 50.00 6.25
14
5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 50.00 6.25
15
5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 50.00 6.25
16
5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 50.00 6.25
17
5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 50.00 6.25
18
5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 50.00 6.25
19
5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 50.00 6.25
20
5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 50.00 6.25









Appendix Table 10. The mean injury of piercing-sucking arthropod on cape gooseberry
plant

PLANT
SEEDLING
FRUITING
FLOWERING
FRUITING
SAMPLE
STAGE
STAGE
STAGE
STAGE
1 1.00 2.14 4.00 6.25
2 1.00 2.43 3.50 6.25
3 1.00 1.86 4.00 6.25
4 1.00 2.43 4.00 6.25
5 1.00 2.14 4.00 6.25

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

40

6 1.00 2.43 3.50 6.25
7 1.00 2.43 4.00 6.25
8 1.00 2.43 4.00 6.25
9 1.00 1.86 4.00 6.25
10 1.00 2.14 3.50 6.25
11 1.00 2.43 4.00 6.25
12 1.00 2.14 4.00 6.25
13 1.00 2.43 3.50 6.25
14 1.00 1.86 3.50 6.25
15 1.00 2.43 4.00 6.25
16 1.00 2.14 4.00 6.25
17 1.00 2.14 4.00 6.25
18 1.00 2.43 3.50 6.25
19 1.00 2.14 4.00 6.25
20 1.00 1.86 4.00 6.25
TOTAL 20 44.29
77
125
MEAN 1d 2.21c 3.85b 6.25a
SD 0 0.225 0.235 0
RANGE 1 2.21±0.050
3.85±0.053 6.25

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TREATMENTS COMPUTED
T
SEEDLING STAGE
0 ns
VEGETATIVE STAGE
10.757 *
FLOWERING STAGE
24.997 *
FRUITING STAGE
60. 503 *
ns = not significant
* = significant






Appendix Table 11. Average population of insect and other arthropods during the
seedling stage of the cape gooseberry plant

PLANT
REP 1
REP 2
REP 3
REP 4
TOTAL
MEAN
SAMPLE
1 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 8.00 2.00
2 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 8.00 2.00
3 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 10.00 2.50
4 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 8.00 2.00
5 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 1.50

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

41

6 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 10.00 2.50
7 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 8.00 2.00
8 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 8.00 2.00
9 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 10.00 2.50
10 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 8.00 2.00
11 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 10.00 2.50
12 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 8.00 2.00
13 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 10.00 2.50
14 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 1.50
15 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 10.00 2.50
16 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 1.50
17 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 10.00 2.50
18 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 10.00 2.50
19 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 1.50
20 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 10.00 2.50


Appendix Table 12. Average population of insects and other arthropods during the
vegetative stage of the cape gooseberry plant

PLANT
REP
REP
REP
REP
REP
REP
REP TOTAL MEAN
SAMPLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
3.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 37.00 5.29
2
5.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 41.00 5.86
3
3.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 39.00 5.57
4
5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 7.00 39.00 5.57
5
3.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 37.00 5.29
6
3.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 7.00 37.00 5.29
7
3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 7.00 35.00 5.00
8
3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 33.00 4.71
9
5.00 5.00 3.00 7.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 39.00 5.57
10
3.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 41.00 5.86
11
5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 37.00 5.29
12
5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 39.00 5.57
13
5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 7.00 39.00 5.57
14
3.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 37.00 5.29
Appendix Table 12. Continued.

15
3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 39.00 5.29
16
3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 35.00 4.71
17
3.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 39.00 5.29
18
3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 39.00 5.29
19
3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 37.00 5.00
20
3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 37.00 5.00


Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

42


Appendix Table 13. Average population of insects and other arthropods during the
flowering stage of the cape gooseberry plant

PLANT
REP 1
REP 2
REP 3
REP 4
TOTAL MEAN
SAMPLE
1 7.00 7.00 9.00 9.00
32.00
8.00
2 7.00 7.00 9.00 9.00
32.00
8.00
3 7.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
34.00
8.50
4 7.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
34.00
8.50
5 7.00 7.00 9.00 9.00
32.00
8.00
6 7.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
34.00
8.50
7 7.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
34.00
8.50
8 7.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
34.00
8.50
9 7.00 7.00 9.00 9.00
32.00
8.00
10 7.00 7.00 9.00 9.00
32.00
8.00
11 7.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
34.00
8.50
12 7.00 7.00 9.00 9.00
32.00
8.00
13 7.00 7.00 9.00 9.00
32.00
8.00
14 7.00 7.00 9.00 9.00
32.00
8.00
15 7.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
34.00
8.50
16 7.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
34.00
8.50
17 7.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
34.00
8.50
18 7.00 7.00 9.00 9.00
32.00
8.00
19 7.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
34.00
8.50
20 7.00 7.00 9.00 9.00
32.00
8.00










Appendix Table 14. Population of insects and other arthropods during the fruiting stage
of the cape gooseberry plant

PLANT
REP REP REP REP REP REP REP REP TOTAL MEAN
SAMPLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 9.00 7.00 68.00 8.50
2
9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 7.00 68.00 8.50
3
9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 9.00 9.00 70.00 8.75
4
9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 9.00 7.00 9.00 78.00 8.50

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

43

5
9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 72.00 9.00
6
9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 70.00 8.75
7
9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 9.00 7.00 7.00 66.00 8.25
8
9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 9.00 9.00 70.00 8.75
9
9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 9.00 70.00 8.75
10
9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 7.00 68.00 8.50
11
9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 9.00 9.00 70.00 8.75
12
9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 7.00 9.00 9.00 68.00 8.50
13
9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 9.00 70.00 8.75
14
9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 9.00 7.00 70.00 8.50
15
9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 7.00 9.00 9.00 68.00 8.50
16
9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 70.00 8.75
17
9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 9.00 7.00 68.00 8.50
18
9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 70.00 8.75
19
9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 7.00 68.00 8.50
20
9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 68.00 8.50


Appendix Table 15. Average population of arthropods during the seedling, vegetative,
flowering and fruiting stages of cape gooseberry
PLANT
SEEDLING
VEGETATIVE
FLOWERING
FRUITING
SAMPLE
STAGE
STAGE
STAGE
STAGE
1 2.00 5.29 8.00 8.50
2 2.00 5.86 8.00 8.50
3 2.50 5.57 8.50 8.75
4 2.00 5.57 8.50 8.50
5 1.50 5.29 8.00 9.00
6 2.50 5.29 8.50 8.75
7 2.00 5.00 8.50 8.25
8 2.00 4.71 8.50 8.75
9 2.50 5.57 8.00 8.75
10 2.00 5.86
8.00 8.50
11 2.50 5.29
8.50 8.75
12 2.00 5.57
8.00 8.50
13
2.50
5.57
8.00
8.75
Appendix Table 15. Continued.
14
1.50
5.29
8.00
8.50
15
2.50
5.29
8.50
8.50
16
1.50
4.71
8.50
8.75
17
2.50
5.29
8.50
8.50
18
2.50
5.29
8.00
8.75
19
1.50
5.00
8.50
8.50
20
2.50
5.00
8.00
8.50

Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

44

TOTAL 42.5 106.31
165
172.25
MEAN 2.13d 5.32c 8.25b 8.61a
SD 0.393 0.321 0.257 0.172
RANGE 2.13±0.088 5.32±0.072 8.25±0.057 8.61±0.038

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
FC Prob
2067.93* <0.01
*= significant





















Insects and Other Arthropods Associated with Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana
Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet / KEVIN JOE P. ELADJOE 2011

---

Document Outline

• Insects and Other Arthropods Associated withCape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana Linnaeus) in La Trinidad, Benguet
  • BIBLIOGRAPHY
  • ABSTRACT
  • TABLE OF CONTENTS
  • INTRODUCTION
  • REVIEW OF LITERATURE
  • METHODOLOGY
  • RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
  • SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
  • LITERATURE CITED
  • APPENDICES

---