Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:42:43.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aphids do not avoid resistance in Australian lupin (Lupinus angustifolius, L. luteus) varieties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

O.R. Edwards ,
T.J. Ridsdill-Smith  and
F.A. Berlandier
O.R. Edwards*
Affiliation:
CSIRO Entomology, Centre for Environment and Life Sciences, Private Bag 5, Wembley, WA 6913, Australia Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture (CLIMA), School of Plant Biology, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
T.J. Ridsdill-Smith
Affiliation:
CSIRO Entomology, Centre for Environment and Life Sciences, Private Bag 5, Wembley, WA 6913, Australia Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture (CLIMA), School of Plant Biology, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
F.A. Berlandier
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture Western Australia, Locked Bag 4, Bentley Delivery Centre, WA 6983, Australia Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture (CLIMA), School of Plant Biology, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
*
*Fax: +61 8 9333 6646 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Laboratory bioassays and field trials were used to characterize resistance to three aphid species (Myzus persicae (Sulzer), Acyrthosiphon kondoi Shinji, Aphis craccivora (Koch) in two aphid-resistant varieties (Kalya, Tanjil) and one susceptible variety (Tallerack) of Lupinus angustifolius L., and in one resistant variety (Teo) and one susceptible variety (Wodjil) of L. luteus L. Host selection tests in the glasshouse showed that alates of all three species preferred L. luteus to L. angustifolius, but provided no evidence that alates selected susceptible varieties over resistant. These results were supported by a field trial, which showed no difference in the number of colonizing A. kondoi alates collected from the resistant and susceptible lines of each lupin species, but there were significantly more late-instar nymphs and apterous adults on the susceptible lines. In laboratory host suitability experiments, there was much greater suppression of aphid growth and survival on Teo than on Kalya and Tanjil. In field trials, the numbers of aphids were generally lower on resistant compared to susceptible lines of both lupin species with one notable exception: M. persicae numbers were not lower on the resistant variety Tanjil compared to the susceptible variety Tallerack (L. angustifolius). These results suggest that the resistance mechanisms in both lupin species do not affect the selection of hosts by colonizing aphids, but rather are affecting the growth, survival and possibly reproduction of aphids after settling.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 93 , Issue 5 , September 2003 , pp. 403 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

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

Berlandier, F.A. (1996) Alkaloid level in narrow-leafed lupin, Lupinus angustifolius, influences green peach aphid reproductive performance. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 79, 19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlandier, F.A. & Sweetingham, M.W. (2003) Aphid feeding damage causes large losses in susceptible lupin cultivars. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlandier, F.A., Thackray, D.J., Jones, R.A.C., Latham, L.J. & Cartwright, L. (1997) Determining the relative roles of different aphid species as vectors of cucumber mosaic and bean yellow mosaic viruses in lupins. Annals of Applied Biology 131, 297–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackman, R.L. & Eastop, V.F. (2000) Aphids on the world's crops –an identification and information guide, 2nd edn. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Castro, A.M., Vasicek, A., Ramos, S., Worland, A., Suarez, E., Munoz, M., Gimenez, D. & Clua, A.A. (1999) Different types of resistance against greenbug, Schizaphis graminum Rond, and the Russian wheat aphid, Diuraphis noxia Mordvilko, in wheat. Plant Breeding 118, 131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corcuera, L.J. (1993) Biochemical basis for the resistance of barley to aphids. Phytochemistry 33, 741–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowling, W.C. (1999) Pedigrees and characteristics of narrow-leafed lupin cultivars released in Australia from 1967 to 1998. Department of Agriculture, Western Australia Bulletin 4365,.Google Scholar
Dracup, M. & Kirby, E.J.M. (1996) Lupin development guide. 97pp. University of Western Australia Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, O.R. (2001) Interspecific and intraspecific variation in the performance of three pest aphid species on five grain legume hosts. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 100, 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, R.J., Sweetingham, M.W. & Shea, G.G. (2001) A comparison of the adaptation of yellow lupin (Lupinus luteus L.) and narrow-leafed lupin (L. angustifolius L.) to acid sandplain soils in low rainfall agricultural areas of Western Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52, 945–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagnon, H. & Ibrahim, R.K. (1997) Effects of various elicitors on the accumulation and secretion of isoflavonoids in white lupin. Phytochemistry 44, 1463–1467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gladstone, J.S. (1994) An historical review of lupins in Australia. pp. 1–38. in Dracup, M. & Palta, J. (Eds.) Proceedings of the First Australian Lupin Technical SymposiumPerthWestern Australia, Western Australian Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Gremigni, P., Wong, M.T.F., Edwards, N.K., Harris, D. & Hamblin, J. (2001) Potassium nutrition effects on seed alkaloid concentrations, yield and mineral content of lupins (Lupinus angustifolius). Plant and Soil 234, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrewijn, P. (1990) Resistance mechanisms of plant genotypes to various aphid species. pp. 117–130in Campbell, R.K. & Eikenary, R.D. (Eds.) Aphid-plant genotype interactions. Amsterdam, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Jones, R.A.C. & Proudlove, W. (1991) Further studies on cucumber mosaic virus infection of narrow-leafed lupin (Lupinus angustifolius): seed-borne infection, aphid transmission, spread and effects on grain yield. Annals of Applied Biology 118, 319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingauf, F.A. (1987) Host plant finding and acceptance. pp. 209–223in Minks, A.K. & Harrewijn, P. (Eds.) Aphids: their biology, natural enemies and control, Volume 2A. Amsterdam, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Piron, P.G.M. (1987) The advance of the American lupin aphid (Macrosiphum albifrons Essig) (Homoptera: Aphididae) in Europe. Journal of Applied Entomology 103, 111–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinink, K. & Dieleman, F.L. (1989) Comparison of sources of resistance to leaf aphids in lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.). Euphytica 40, 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridsdill-Smith, T.J., Edwards, O.R., WangS.F., S.F.,Ghisalberti, E. & Reidy-Crofts, J. (2003) Aphid responses to plant defensive compounds in lupins. In Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Aphids, in press.Google Scholar
StatSoft (1995) STATISTICA. Volume I: General conventions and statistics I. Tulsa, OK, StatSoft Inc. pp. 1691–1802.Google Scholar
van Emden, H.F. (1964) Effect of (2-chloroethyl) trimethlammonium chloride on the rate of increase of the cabbage aphid (Brevicoryne brassicae (L.)). Nature 201, 946–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Via, S. (1999) Reproductive isolation between sympatric races of pea aphids. I. gene flow restriction and habitat choice. Evolution 53, 1446–1457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, S.F., Ridsdill-Smith, T.J. & Ghisalberti, E.L. (1998) Role of isoflavonoids in resistance of subterranean clover trifoliates to the redlegged earth mite Halotydeus destructor. Journal of Chemical Ecology 24, 795–803.Google Scholar
Wang, S.F., Ridsdill-Smith, T.J. & Ghisalberti, E.L. (1999) Levels of isoflavonoids as indicators of resistance of subterranean clover trifoliates to redlegged earth mite Halotydeus destructor. Journal of Chemical Ecology 25, 2089–2100.Google Scholar
Wink, M. (1984) Biochemistry and chemical ecology of lupin alkaloids. In Proceedings of the International Lupin ConferenceLa RochelleFrance, pp. 326–343.Google Scholar
Wink, M. & Roemer, P. (1986) Acquired toxicity-the advantages of specializing on alkaloid-rich lupins to Macrosiphon albifrons (Aphidae). Naturwissenschaften 73, 210–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wink, M., Hartmann, T., Witte, L. & Rheinheimer, J. (1982) Interrelationship between quinolizidine alkaloid producing legumes and infesting insects: exploitation of the alkaloid-containing phloem sap of Cytisus scoparius by the broom aphid Aphis cytisorum. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung, Serie C 37C, 1081–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, J.H. (1984) Biostatistical analysis, pp. 52–53New Jersey, Prentice Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
Zehnder, G.W., Nichols, A.J., Edwards, O.R. & Ridsdill-Smith, T.J. (2001) Electronically monitored cowpea aphid feeding behavior on resistant and susceptible lupins. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 98, 259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar