Paper · 2025 · Journal of Advances in Biology & Biotechnology

Screening Apple and Apricot Cultivars for Resistance against Key Insect Pests in Trans Himalayan Region

Jigmet Laskit; Z.H. Khan; F.D. Sheikh; et al.

10
claims
15
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) and apple (Malus domestica Borkh.) are the most widely cultivated fruits in Ladakh, but their production is increasingly threatened by insect pests like aphids and codling moths (Cydia pomonella). This study aimed to evaluate the resistance of three popular apricot varieties Halman, Raksteykarpo, and Narmo to aphid infestations, and three apple varieties Tha-kushu, Mongol, and Phemar-khushu to codling moth damage. Field surveys were conducted in orchards across the Leh district during the 2022 and 2023 growing seasons to assess pest incidence and varietal response. The results showed that Halman was the most susceptible to aphids among apricots, with an infestation rate of 47.76%, followed by Raksteykarpo (38.44%). In contrast, Narmo exhibited the lowest infestation (23.11%) and demonstrated moderate resistance. Similarly, in apples, Tha-kushu suffered the highest fruit damage from codling moths (55.49%), followed by Mongol (36.66%), while Phemar-khushu experienced the least damage (26.83%), likely due to its early maturation, which limited its exposure to multiple pest generations. These findings underscore the importance of selecting pest-tolerant cultivars for sustainable fruit farming in Ladakh. While none of the varieties was entirely resistant, Narmo and Phemar-khushu showed promising levels of tolerance, making them more suitable for cultivation in pest-prone regions. As climate change continues to impact pest dynamics, further research on plant resistance traits and eco-friendly pest management strategies is crucial. Identifying naturally resilient cultivars will not only support breeding programs but also help local farmers adopt sustainable agricultural practices while reducing reliance on chemical pesticides.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 10

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Halman was the most susceptible apricot cultivar to aphids, with 47.76% infestation.

Taxon
apricotsPrunus armeniacae1
Material
Halmane1
Interactor
aphidsAphidomorphae1pest
Outcome
infestation ratee1
Value
47.76%e1
Qualifier
most susceptiblee1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus armeniaca
Prunus armeniaca · TaxonFir0002 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The results showed that Halman was the most susceptible to aphids among apricots, with an infestation rate of 47.76%, followed by Raksteykarpo (38.44%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 602–753 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Raksteykarpo apricot had 38.44% aphid infestation.

Taxon
apricotsPrunus armeniacae1
Material
Raksteykarpoe1
Interactor
aphidsAphidomorphae1pest
Outcome
infestation ratee1
Value
38.44%e1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus armeniaca
Prunus armeniaca · TaxonFir0002 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The results showed that Halman was the most susceptible to aphids among apricots, with an infestation rate of 47.76%, followed by Raksteykarpo (38.44%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 602–753 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Narmo apricot had the lowest aphid infestation, 23.11%, and showed moderate resistance.

Taxon
ApricotPrunus armeniacat0
Material
Narmoe2
Outcome
infestatione2
Value
23.11%e2
Qualifier
moderate resistancee2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus armeniaca
Prunus armeniaca · TaxonFir0002 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Apple and Apricot Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 10–37 · show in text ↑
e2

“In contrast, Narmo exhibited the lowest infestation (23.11%) and demonstrated moderate resistance”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 755–852 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tha-kushu apple had the highest codling moth fruit damage, 55.49%.

Material
Tha-kushue3
Interactor
codling mothsCydia pomonellae3pest
Outcome
fruit damagee3
Value
55.49%e3
Qualifier
higheste3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Cydia pomonella
Cydia pomonella · InteractorSimon Winkley & Ken Walker, Museum Victoria · CC BY 3.0 au · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e3

“Similarly, in apples, Tha-kushu suffered the highest fruit damage from codling moths (55.49%), followed by Mongol (36.66%), while Phemar-khushu experienced the least damage (26.83%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 854–1035 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mongol apple had 36.66% codling moth fruit damage.

Material
Mongole3
Interactor
codling mothsCydia pomonellae3pest
Outcome
fruit damagee3
Value
36.66%e3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Cydia pomonella
Cydia pomonella · InteractorSimon Winkley & Ken Walker, Museum Victoria · CC BY 3.0 au · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e3

“Similarly, in apples, Tha-kushu suffered the highest fruit damage from codling moths (55.49%), followed by Mongol (36.66%), while Phemar-khushu experienced the least damage (26.83%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 854–1035 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Phemar-khushu apple had the least codling moth fruit damage, 26.83%.

Material
Phemar-khushue3
Interactor
codling mothsCydia pomonellae3pest
Outcome
fruit damagee3
Value
26.83%e3
Qualifier
least damagee3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Cydia pomonella
Cydia pomonella · InteractorSimon Winkley & Ken Walker, Museum Victoria · CC BY 3.0 au · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e3

“Similarly, in apples, Tha-kushu suffered the highest fruit damage from codling moths (55.49%), followed by Mongol (36.66%), while Phemar-khushu experienced the least damage (26.83%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 854–1035 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Narmo apricot showed promising levels of tolerance to the pests.

Taxon
ApricotPrunus armeniacat0
Material
Narmoe4
Outcome
levels of tolerancee4
Qualifier
promisinge4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus armeniaca
Prunus armeniaca · TaxonFir0002 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Apple and Apricot Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 10–37 · show in text ↑
e4

“While none of the varieties was entirely resistant, Narmo and Phemar-khushu showed promising levels of tolerance”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1249–1361 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Phemar-khushu apple showed promising levels of tolerance to the pests.

Material
Phemar-khushue4
Outcome
levels of tolerancee4
Qualifier
promisinge4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Apple and Apricot Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 10–37 · show in text ↑
e4

“While none of the varieties was entirely resistant, Narmo and Phemar-khushu showed promising levels of tolerance”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1249–1361 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

None of the apricot or apple cultivars was entirely resistant.

Taxon
Apple and ApricotMalus domesticaPrunus armeniacat0
Outcome
entirely resistante4
Qualifier
none of the varietiese4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Prunus armeniaca
Prunus armeniaca · TaxonFir0002 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Apple and Apricot Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 10–37 · show in text ↑
e4

“While none of the varieties was entirely resistant, Narmo and Phemar-khushu showed promising levels of tolerance”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1249–1361 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Phemar-khushu apple likely escaped damage because its early maturation limited its exposure to multiple pest generations.

Outcome
damagee3
Qualifier
early maturatione5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e3

“Similarly, in apples, Tha-kushu suffered the highest fruit damage from codling moths (55.49%), followed by Mongol (36.66%), while Phemar-khushu experienced the least damage (26.83%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 854–1035 · show in text ↑
e5

“likely due to its early maturation, which limited its exposure to multiple pest generations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1037–1128 · show in text ↑