Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-pd9xq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T02:08:57.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Photoperiod and Temperature on Reproduction in Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) and on the Forms produced

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Joyce Kenten
Joyce Kenten
Affiliation:
Department of Insecticides and Fungicides, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The effect of photoperiod and temperature on the production of the various forms of Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) has been studied. In this study apterous virginoparous females were exposed throughout their lifetime to two photoperiods (8 hr./24 hr. and 16 hr./24 hr.) and six different temperatures. At each of the temperatures the apterae (parent Aphids) received one of four treatments of photoperiod, i.e., (1) 8 hr./24 hr. photoperiod throughout their whole life; (2) 8 hr. /24 hr. photoperiod during the period from birth until the last (imaginal) moult (nymphal period), followed by 16 hr./24 hr. photoperiod from the last (imaginal) moult until death (the adult period); (3) 16 hr./24 hr. throughout life; (4) 16 hr./24 hr. during the nymphal period followed by 8 hr./24 hr. during the adult period. The offspring produced by the various parents were collected at successive intervals, and their form determined.

Four main forms of offspring were produced: apterous and alate virginoparae, males and oviparae. In addition, a subsidiary form of the apterous virginoparae was obtained, which had sensoria on the hind tibiae.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , October 1955 , pp. 599 - 624
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boxnemaison, L. (1951). Contribution à l'étude des facteurs provoquant l'appari–tion des formes ailées et sexuées chez les Aphidinae.—Ann. Inst. Eech. agron. Sér. C. Ann. Epiphyt., 2, pp. 1–380.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. (1929). On the occurrence of the parthenogenetic and sexual forms in Aphis rumicis L., with special reference to the influence of environmental factors.—Ann. appl. Biol., 16, pp. 104–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehkenhaedt, H. (1940). Der Einfluss von Temperatur und Feuchtigkeit auf die Entwicklung und Vermehrung der Blutlaus.—Arb. physiol, angew. Ent., 7, pp. 150–168.Google Scholar
Fenjves, P. (1945). Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Blattlaus Myzus (Myzodes) persicae Sulz., Überträgerin der Blattrollkrankheit der Kartoffel.—Mitt. schweiz. ent. Ges., 19, pp. 489–611.Google Scholar
De Fluiter, H. J. (1950). De invloed van daglengte en temperatuur op het optreden van de geslachtsdieren bij Aphis fabae Scop., de zwarte bonenluis.—Tijdschr. PlZiekt., 56, pp. 265–285.Google Scholar
Gregory, L. H. (1917). The effect of starvation on the wing development of Microsiphum destructor.—Biol. Bull., Woods Hole, 33, pp. 296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitzmiller, J. B. (1950). The time interval between determination and differentiation of wings, ocelli, and wing muscles in the Aphid Macrosiphum sanborni (Gillette).—Amer. Nat., 84, pp. 23–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, C. A. (1941). The effect of temperature on longevity, reproduction and growth in Aphids.—Genetics, 26, p. 159.Google Scholar
Marcovitch, S. (1923). Plant lice and light exposure.—Science, 58, pp. 537–538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcovitoh, S. (1924). The migration of the Aphididae and the appearance of the sexual forms as affected by the relative length of daily light exposure.—J. agric. Res., 27, pp. 513–522.Google Scholar
Rattan Lal, R. (1951). Biology and control of Myzus persicae Sulzer as a pest of potato at Delhi.—Indian J. agric. Sci., 20, pp. 87–100.Google Scholar
Reinhard, H. J. (1927). The influence of parentage, nutrition, temperature, and crowding on wing production in Aphis gossypii, Glover.—Bull. Tex. agric. Exp. Sta., no. 353, 19 pp.Google Scholar
Rivnay, E. (1937). Moisture as the factor affecting wing development in the Citrus Aphis, Toxoptera aurantii, Boy.—Bull. ent. Res., 28, pp. 173–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaefer, C. W. (1938). Physiological conditions which produce wing development in the Pea Aphid.—J. agric. Res., 57, pp. 825–841.Google Scholar
Shull, A. F. (1929). The effect of intensity and duration of light and of duration of darkness, partly modified by temperature, upon wing-production in Aphids.—Arch. EntwMech. Org., 115, pp. 825–851.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shull, A. F. (1930 a). Control of gamic and parthenogenetic reproduction in winged Aphids by temperature and light.—Z. indukt. Abstamm.- u. VererbLehre, 55, pp. 108–126.Google Scholar
Shull, A. F. (1930 b). Order of embryonic determination of the differential features of gamic and parthenogenetic Aphids.—Z. indukt. Abstamm.- u. VererbLehre, 57, pp. 92–111.Google Scholar
Shull, A. F. (1932). Clonal differences and clonal changes in the Aphid Macrosiphum solanifolii.—Amer. Nat., 66, pp. 385–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shull, A. F. (1942). The mechanism through which light and heat influence genetic factors for wing development in Aphids.—J. exp. Zool., 89, pp. 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. M. (1937). Growth, reproduction, feeding, and wing development of the Mealy Plum Aphid in relation to climatic factors.—J. agric. Res., 54, pp. 345–364.Google Scholar
Wadley, F. M. (1923). Factors affecting the proportion of alate and apterous forms of Aphids.—Ann. ent. Soc. Amer., 16, pp. 279–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, W. S. (1946). The environmental conditions affecting the genetic mechanism of wing production in the Chrysanthemum Aphid.—Amer. Nat., 80, pp. 245–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, F. (1938). Some experiments on the influence of environment upon the forms of Aphis chloris Koch (Aphididae).—Trans. E. ent. Soc. Lond., 87, pp. 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar