Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T19:36:20.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ovipositional preferences, damage thresholds, and detection of the tomato–potato psyllid Bactericera cockerelli (Homoptera: Psyllidae) on selected tomato accessions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D. Liu  and
J.T. Trumble
D. Liu*
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA
J.T. Trumble
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA
*
*Fax: 1 951 8275624 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The tomato–potato psyllid Bactericera [Paratrioza] cockerelli (Sulc) has recently caused losses exceeding 50% on fresh market tomatoes in California and Baja, Mexico by injecting a toxin that results in a condition known as ‘psyllid yellows’. The objectives of this study were to: (i) document oviposition preferences on a range of tomato cultivars; (ii) determine threshold levels for psyllid densities that would cause psyllid yellows on tomatoes within the first three weeks following transplanting; and (iii) identify the most important ‘psyllid yellows’ symptoms that might be used in surveying and monitoring for this pest. Plant lines tested included the commonly-planted commercial cultivars ‘Shady Lady’ and ‘QualiT 21’, an older, previously commercial cultivar ‘7718 VFN’, a common cultivar planted by consumers ‘Yellow Pear’, and a wild type plant accession, PI 134417. When given a choice, psyllids significantly preferred ‘Yellow Pear’ and avoided PI 134417 for oviposition. Under no-choice conditions psyllids laid significantly fewer eggs on PI 134417, but all the other plant lines were equally good substrates for laying eggs. Thus, oviposition preference is not likely to provide a functional management strategy in large plantings. On ‘Shady Lady’, psyllids preferred to oviposit on plants already infested with adults. On both ‘Shady Lady’ and ‘7718 VFN’ oviposition was significantly greater on plants previously infested by nymphs as compared to uninfested control plants. This suggests that, at least for some cultivars, there is a physiological change in plant attractiveness following psyllid feeding. ‘Yellow Pear’ and ‘QualiT 21’ were relatively tolerant of psyllids, requiring 18 nymphs per plant to produce the disease symptoms. Only eight nymphs per plant were needed on ‘Shady Lady’ and ‘7718 VFN’. For all cultivars, the pest density showed strong correlations with measurements such as the number of yellowing leaves and leaflets and distorted leaves, which were as good as or better than the first factor extracted from principal component analysis. Therefore, such measurements have the potential to simplify field surveys.

Keywords

psyllid yellowstomatoplant resistanceeconomic injury level
Type
Review Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 96 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 197 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

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

Al-Jabar, A. (1999) Integrated pest management of tomato/potato psyllid, Paratrioza cockerelli (Sulc) (Homoptera: Psyllidae) with emphasis on its importance in greenhouse grown tomatoes. PhD dissertation, Colorado State University.Google Scholar
Berdegué, M., Reitz, S.R. & Trumble, J.T. (1998) Host plant selection and development in Spodoptera exigua: do mother and offspring know best. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 89, 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blood, H.L., Richards, B.L. & Wann, F.B. (1933) Studies of psyllid yellows of tomato. Phytopathology 23, 930.Google Scholar
Carter, R.D. (1950) Toxicity of Paratrioza cockerelli to certain solanaceous plants. PhD dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Carter, W. (1939) Injuries to plants caused by insect toxins. Botanical Review 5, 273–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, R.K. (1985) Insects that poison plants. American Vegetable Grower 33, 31–38.Google Scholar
Cooper, W.R. & Goggin, F.L. (2005) Effects of jasmonate-induced defenses in tomato on the potato aphid, Macrosiphum euphorbiae. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 115, 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Ilarduya, O.M., Xie, Q.G. & Kaloshian, I. (2003) Aphid-induced defense responses in Mi-1-mediated compatible and incompatible tomato interactions. Molecular Plant–Microbe Interactions 16, 699–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eigenbrode, S.D. & Trumble, J.T. (1993) Antibiosis to beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua, in Lycopersicon accessions. HortScience 28, 932–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eigenbrode, S.D., Trumble, J.T. & Jones, R.A. (1993) Resistance to beet armyworm, hemipterans, and Liriomyza spp. in Lycopersicon. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 118, 525–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrar, R.R. & Kennedy, G.G. (1992) Sources of insect and mite resistance in tomato in Lycopersicon spp. pp. 121–142Kalloo, G. (Ed.) Monographs on theoretical and applied genetics, Vol. 14. Genetic improvement of tomato, Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Garzón, T.J.A., Garza, C.A. & Bujanos, M.R. (1986) Determinación del insecto vector de la enfermedad de tipo viral “permanente del tomate” (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) en la región del Bajío. p. 30 in: XIII Congreso Nacional de Fitopatología.Tuxtla GutierrezChiapas Resúmenes Sociedad Mexicana de Fitopatología, A.C.Google Scholar
Garzón, T.J.A., Bujanos, M.R., Avilés, M.C.G., Byerly, M.K.F., Parga, T.V., Martínez, C.J.L., Marín, J.A. (2004) Bactericera (Paratrioza) cockerelli Sulc, transmisor de toxinas y vectores de fitoplasmas 80 – 94.Google Scholar
Hodkinson, I.D. & Hughes, M.K. (1982) Insect herbivory. 77 pp. New York, Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagata, H. & Ohgushi, T. (2001) Preference and performance linkage of a leaf-mining moth on different Salicaceae species. Population Ecology 43, 141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowlton, G.F. & James, M.J. (1931) Studies on the biology of Paratrioza cockerelli (Sulc). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 24, 283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, D. & Trumble, J.T. (2004) Tomato psyllid behavioral responses to tomato plant lines and interactions of plant lines with insecticides. Journal of Economic Entomology 97, 1078–1085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, D. & Trumble, J.T. (2005) Interactions of plant resistance and insecticides on the development and survival of Bactericera cockerelli [Sulc] (Homoptera: Psyllidae). Crop Protection 24, 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, D., Trumble, J.T. & Stouthamer, R. (2006) Molecular characterization indicates recent introductions of potato psyllid (Bactericera cockerelli) into western North America are genetically different from eastern populations. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luft, P.A. & Paine, T.D. (1997) Behavioral cues associated with oviposition by Trioza eugeniae. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 84, 293–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luft, P.A., Paine, T.D. & Redak, R.A. (2001) Limiting the potential for intraspecific competition: regulation of Trioza eugeniae oviposition on unexpanded leaf tissue. Ecological Entomology 26, 395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matkin, O.A. & Chandler, P.A. (1957) The U. C.–type soil mixes. 68–85 in Baker, K. (Ed.) The U. C. system for producing healthy container-grown plants through the use of clean soil, clean stock and sanitation. California California Agricultural Experiment Station Manual 23, Berkley, California.Google Scholar
Mayer, R.T., Mccollum, T.G., Mcdonald, R.E., Polston, J.E. & Doostdar, H. (1996) Bemisia feeding induces pathogenesis-related proteins in tomato, pp 179–188 in Gerling, D. & Mayer, R.T. (Eds) Bemisia 1995: taxonomy, biology, damage control and management. Andover, Hants, Intercept Ltd.Google Scholar
Mayer, R.T., Inbar, M., McKenzie, C.L., Shatters, R., Borowicz, V., Albrecht, U., Powell, C.A. & Doostdar, H. (2002) Multitrophic interactions of the silverleaf whitefly, host plants, competing herbivores, and phytopathogens. Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology 51, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McAuslane, H.J., Chen, J., Carle, R.B. & Schmalstig, J. (2004) Influence of Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) infestation and squash silverleaf disorder on zucchini seedling growth. Journal of Economic Entomology 97, 1096–1105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miles, P.W. (1999) Aphid saliva. Biological Reviews 74, 41–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, P.J. & Thompson, G.A. (2001) Molecular responses to aphid feeding in Arabidopsis in relation to plant defense pathways. Plant Physiology 125, 1074–1085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pletsch, D.J. (1947) The potato psyllid Paratrioza cockerelli (Sulc), its biology and control. Montana Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin 446, 95Google Scholar
SAS (2002) North Carolina, USA SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
StatView (1998) North Carolina, USA SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
Stout, M.J., Workman, K.V., Bostock, R.M. & Duffey, S.S. (1998) Specifcity of induced resistance in the tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum. Oecologia 113, 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavormina, S.J. (1982) Sympatric genetic divergence in the leaf-mining insect Liriomyza brassicae (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Evolution 36, 523–524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trumble, J.T. (1993) Sampling arthropod pests in vegetables. pp. 609–632in Pedigo, L. & Buntin, D. (Eds) Handbook of sampling methods for arthropod pests in agriculture. Boca Raton, Florida CRC Press.Google Scholar
Underwood, N.C. (1998) The timing of induced resistance and induced susceptibility in the soybean–Mexican bean beetle system. Oecologia 114, 376–381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Westhuizen, A.J., Qian, X.M., Botha, A.M. (1998) Differential induction of apoplastic peroxidase and chitinase activities in susceptible and resistant wheat cultivars by Russian wheat aphid infestation. Plant Cell Reports 18, 132–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Via, S. (1984a) The quantitative genetics of polyphagy in an insect herbivore. I. Genotype–environment interaction in larval performance on different host plant species. Evolution 38, 881–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Via, S. (1984b) The quantitative genetics of polyphagy in an insect herbivore. II. Genetic correlations in larval performance within and among host plants. Evolution 38, 896–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar