Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:42:39.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Nitrogen Content of Different Varieties of Peas as a Factor Affecting Infestations by Macrosiphum pisi (Kltb.) (Homoptera: Aphididae). A Preliminary Report1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

J. B. Maltais
Affiliation:
Dominion Entomological Laboratory, St. Jean, P.Q.

Extract

The influence of varietal differences in plants on infestation by aphids has received considerable attention in control studies. Painter (14), in 1941, concluded that the composition of the available food in the host plant plays possibly the most important role in determining the relative resistance to aphid attacks. In biological studies on Aphis rumicis L., Davidson (8) found that factors that influence the physiological activity of the plant affect also the progress of aphid infestation. The same author (6) also pointed out that aphids exhibit a wide range of fecundity on different hosts. “The sap of certain varieties of beans”, writes Davidson, “appears to have a direct inhibiting effect upon the reproductive capacity of the aphids, whereas that of other varieties seems to have the opposite effect.”

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1951

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

1.Albrecht, H. R.Species and variety differences in resistance to aphid in vetch. J. Econ. Ent. 33: 833–34. 1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Anonymous. The Hengar technique for the Kjeldahl procedure. Hengar Company, Philadelphia, Pa. [Trade pamphlet]Google Scholar
3.Auclair, J. L., and Maltais, J. B.. Studies on the resistance of plants to aphids by the method of paper partition chromatography. Canadian Ent. 82: 175–76. 1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Blanchard, R. A., and Dudley, J. E.. Alfalfa plants resistant to the pea aphid, J. Econ. Ent. 27: 262–65. 1934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Dahms, R. G., and Painter, R. H.. Rate of reproduction of the pea aphid on different alfalfa plants, J. Econ. Ent. 33: 482–86. 1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Davidson, J.Biological studies of Aphis rumicis L. Reproduction on varieties of Vicia faba. Ann. Appl. Biol. 9: 135–45. 1922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Davidson, J.Biological studies of Aphis rumicis L. The penetration of plant tissues and the sources of food supply of aphids. Ann. Appl. Biol. 10: 3554. 1923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Davidson, J.Biological studies of Aphis rumicis L. Factors affecting the infestation of Vicia faba with Aphis rumicis L. Ann. Appl. Biol. 12: 472507. 1925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Hawk, P. B., Oser, B. L., and Summerson, W. H.. Practical physiological chemistry. 12th ed.The Blakiston Company, Philadelphia, Pa. 1947.Google Scholar
10.Horsfall, J. L.The effects of feeding punctures of aphids on certain plant tissues. Pennsylvania Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 182. 1923.Google Scholar
11.Lees, A. H.Insect attack and the internal condition of the plant. Ann. Appl. Biol. 13: 506–15. 1926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Maltais, J. B.Resistance of some varieties of peas to the pea aphid, Illinoia pisi Kalt. 67th Ann. Rept. Ent. Soc. Ontario, 1936, pp. 4045. 1937.Google Scholar
13.Maltais, J. B.New developments in breeding of peas for resistance to the pea aphid. 80th Ann. Rept. Ent. Soc. Ontario, 1949, pp. 2930. 1950.Google Scholar
14.Painter, R. H.The economic value and the biologic significance of insect resistance in plants. J. Econ. Ent. 34: 358–67. 1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Schaefer, C. W.Physiological conditions which produce wing development in the pea aphid, J. Agr. Research 57: 825–41. 1938.Google Scholar
16. Van Slyke, D. D.The quantitative determination of aliphatic amino nitrogen in minute quantities, J. Biol. Chem. 16: 121. 19131914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Wigglesworth, V. B.The principles of insect physiology. 2nd ed.Methuen & Company Ltd., London. 1942.Google Scholar