Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:01:18.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

OVIPOSITION PREFERENCES OF LYGUS LINEOLARIS (PALISOT DE BEAUVOIS) (HETEROPTERA: MIRIDAE) ON FOUR BRASSICA AND TWO SINAPIS SPECIES (BRASSICACEAE) IN FIELD CAGES1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

G.H. Gerber
G.H. Gerber
Affiliation:
Cereal Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 195 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2M9
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The oviposition preferences of Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois) were studied on Brassica carinata A. Braun, Brassica juncea (L.) Czern, Brassica napus L., Brassica rapa L., Sinapis alba L. (high glucosinolates), Sinapis alba L. (low glucosinolates), and Sinapis arvensis L. in a choice test during a 14-day period in field cages. Host-plant discrimination occurred on at least two levels. The first level occurred at the generic level; ovipositing females first selected species of Sinapis on which to lay eggs and later laid on species of Brassica. On species of Sinapis, 80% or more of the total number of eggs were laid during days 1–6, whereas only 35–58% were laid during this period on species of Brassica. The second level occurred at the species level in both Brassica and Sinapis. In Brassica, significantly more eggs were laid on B. carinata and B. napus than on B. juncea; in Sinapis, significantly more eggs were laid on S. alba (high glucosinolates) than on S. arvensis. The numbers of eggs did not differ significantly among B. carinata, B. napus, and S. alba (high glucosinolates). The numbers of eggs on B. rapa and S. alba (low glucosinolate) were not significantly different from those on the other five Brassica and Sinapis hosts tested. Host-plant selection seemed to be unaffected by glucosinolate levels in the seed of S. alba.

Résumé

Les sites de ponte de Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois) gardés en cages dans des cultures de Brassica carinata A. Braun, B. juncea (L.) Czern, B. napus L., B. rapa L., Sinapis alba L. (riche en glucosinolates), S. alba L. (pauvre en glucosinolates) et S. arvensis L., ont été déterminés au cours d’un test de choix d’une durée de 14 jours. Les punaises ont fait preuve de discrimination à au moins deux niveaux; au niveau générique, les femelles pondeuses ont d’abord préféré pondre sur les espèces de Sinapis, puis plus tard ont pondu sur les espèces de Brassica. Sur Sinapis, 80% ou plus du nombre total d’oeufs ont été pondus au cours des jours 1–6, alors que seulement 35–68% ont été pondus au cours de la même période sur les espèces de Brassica. Les punaises ont aussi manifesté de la discrimination au niveau spécifique en choisissant plus particulièrement certaines espèces des deux plantes. Sur Brassica, significativement plus d’oeufs ont été pondus sur B. carinata et B. napus que sur B. juncea, et, chez Sinapis, plus d’oeufs ont été pondus sur S. alba (riche en glucoinolates) que sur S. arvensis. Les nombres d’oeufs pondus ne différaient pas significativement sur B. carinata, B. napus ou S. alba (riche en glucosinolates). Le nombre d’oeufs pondus sur B. rapa ou sur S. alba (pauvre en glucosinolates) ne différait pas significativement des nombres pondus sur les cinq autres espèces de Brassica ou de Sinapis testées. Le choix d’une plante hôte ne semble pas fonction des concentrations de glucosinolates dans les graines de S. alba.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 129 , Issue 5 , October 1997 , pp. 855 - 858
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1997

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

Alvarado-Rodriguez, B., Leigh, T.F., Foster, K.W., and Duffey, S.S.. 1986. Resistance in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) to Lygus hesperus (Heteroptera: Miridae). Journal of Economic Entomology 79: 484–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, G.H. 1996. Field evaluation of the suitability of four Brassica and two Sinapis species (Brassicaceae) as host plants of Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois) (Heteroptera: Miridae). Canadian Journal of Plant Science 76: 203–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Painter, R.H. 1929. The tarnished plant bug, Lygus pratensis L.: a progress report. Annual Report of the Entomological Society of Ontario 60: 102–107.Google Scholar
Steel, R.G.D., and Torrie, J.H.. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics. a biometrical approach. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Taksdal, G. 1963. Ecology of plant resistance to the tarnished plant bug, Lygus lineolaris. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 56: 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tingey, W.M., Leigh, T.F., and Hyer, A.H.. 1973. Three methods of screening cotton for ovipositional nonpreference by Lygus bugs. Journal of Economic Entomology 66: 1312–1314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar