Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:56:30.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resistance in peas, Pisum Sativum L., Against pea leaf miner, Chromatomyia Horticola (goureau) (Diptera: Agromyzidae): biology, feeding and ovipositional preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

A. Sen  and
V. K. Sehgal
A. Sen
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology G. B. Pant, University of Agriculture and Technology Pantnagar 263 145; Uttar Pradesh, India
V. K. Sehgal
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology G. B. Pant, University of Agriculture and Technology Pantnagar 263 145; Uttar Pradesh, India
Get access

Abstract

Studies on developmental biology and feeding and ovipositional preferences of the pea leaf miner, Chromatomyia horticola (Goureau), were carried out on 11 varieties of field peas, Pisum sativum L. Two varieties, P-200 and P-402, offered maximum resistance to the development of pea leaf miner by inhibiting growth as both larval and puparial development were prolonged, and adult longevity, survival and fecundity reduced. These varieties were also least preferred for feeding and oviposition. Differences between the moderately resistant HFP-4 and highly susceptible varieties HFP-5, HFP-6, HFP-12, PG-3, RAU-21, RAU-25, RAU-37and T-163 were not well marked, as most of these had a relatively high value for the developmental success index, based on indices for larval-puparial development, adult longevity, survival and fecundity, and were also highly preferred by the ovipositing females. Variety PG-3, though offering some resistance to development, was highly preferred for oviposition. The local variety T-163, was the most susceptible variety, as it had the maximum value for the developmental success index, and was highly preferred by ovipositing females. The physiological basis of resistance in the two pea varieties is suggested to be mainly non-preference and antibiosis.

Résumé

Des études sur le développement biologique ainsi que sur les preférences alimentaires et de ponte de la mineuse du pois Chromatomyia horticola (Goureau) ont été effectuées sur onze variétés de pois des champs, Pisum sativum L. Deux variétes, P-200 et P-402, ont présenté un maximum de resistance à la mineuse, en inhibant la croissance de façon telle que les développements larvaires et pupaires ont été prolongés et la longévité, la survie et la fécondité des adultes réduites. Ces variétés ont aussi été les moins préférées pour l'alimentation et la ponte. Les différences entre la variété modérément résistante HFP-4 et les variétés fortement susceptibles HFP-5, HFP-6, HFP-12, PG-3, RAU-21, RAU-25, RAU-37 et T-163 n'étaient pas trés marquees puisque la plupart de celles-ci ont eu une valeur relativement forte pour l'indice de succè de développement, indice basé sur le développement larve-pupe ainsi que sur la longévité, la survie et la fécondité des adultes. De plus, ces variétés ont été fortement préférées par les femelles pondeuses. Bien que la variété PG-3 ait offert une certaine resistance au développement, elle a par contre été fortement préférée pour la ponte. La variété locale T-163 à été la variété la plus susceptible puisqu'elle a présenté la plus forte valeur pour l'indice de succès de développement et à été fortement préférée par les femelles pondeuses. II est suggéré que la base physiologique de la résistance pour les deux variétés de pois, est principalement la non-préferénce et l'antibiose.

Keywords

Pisum sativumresistanceChromatomyia horticolaDipteraAgromyzidae
Type
Research Articles
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , April 1993 , pp. 185 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1993

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

REFERENCES

Ahmad, T. and Gupta, R. L. (1941) The pea leaf miner, Phytomyza atricornis (Meigen), in India. Indian J. Entomol. 3, 37–9.Google Scholar
Bethke, J. A. and Parrella, M. P. (1985) Leaf puncturing, feeding and oviposition behaviour of Liriomyza trifolii. Entomol. exp. appl. 39, 149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dethier, V. G. (1947) Chemical Insect Attractants and Repellants. Blackiston, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Dethier, V. G. (1982) Mechanisms of host-plant recognition. Entomol. exp. appl. 31, 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, G. C. D. (1967) Revision of the Phytomyza syngenesiae group (Diptera: Agromyzidae), including species hitherto known as “Phytomyza atricornis Meigen”. Stuttg. Beitr. Naturk. 177, 1–28.Google Scholar
Harris, M. O. and Miller, J. R. (1982) Synergism of visual and chemical stimuli in the oviposition behaviour of Delia antiqua. Proc. 5th. Int. Symp. Insect-Plant Relationships, Wageningen. pp. 117–122.Google Scholar
Harrison, G. D. (1987) Host-plant discrimination and evolution of feeding preferences in the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say). Physiol. Entomol. 12, 407–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkin, A. D. (1917) A discussion of C. G. Hewitt's paper on “Insect behaviour”. J. econ. Entomol. 10, 92–93.Google Scholar
Hussey, N. W. and Gurney, B. (1962) Host selection by the polyphagous species Phytomyza atricornis Meigen (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Entomol. mon. Mag. 23, 42–47.Google Scholar
Ipe, M. and Sadaruddin, M. (1984) Infestation and host specificity of Liriomyza brassicae Riley and the role of phenolic compounds in host plant resistance. Entomon 9, 265–270.Google Scholar
Melis, A. (1935) Contributo alia conoscenza morfologica e biologi ca della Phytomyza atricornis Meig. Redia 21, 205–262.Google Scholar
Merritt, D. J. and Rice, M. J. (1984) Innervation of the cereal sensilla on the ovipositor of the Australian sheep blowfly, (Lucilia cuprina). Physiol. Entomol. 9, 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molitas, L. P. and Gabriel, B. P. (1975) Biology of the sweet pea leaf miner Phytomyza horticola Goureau (Diptera: Agromyzidae) in the Philippines. Philippine Entomol. 3, 89–108.Google Scholar
Painter, R. H. (1958) Resistance of plants to insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 3, 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parrella, M. P., Jones, V. P., Youngman, R. R. and Lebeck, L. M. (1985) Effect of leaf mining and leaf stippling of Liriomyza spp. on photosynthetic rates of Chrysanthemum. Ann. Entomol. Soc. America 78, 90–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokopy, R. J. and Owens, E. D. (1983) Visual detection of plants by herbivorous insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 28, 337–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sach, J. (1860) Vegetationsversuche mit Ausschluss des Bodens uber die Nahrstoffe und sonstigen Eraahrungs bedingungen von Mais, Bohnen, und anderen Pflanzen. Landw. Versuchs Stat. 2 219–268.Google Scholar
Sasakawa, M. (1966) Host preference of the pea leaf miner, Phytomyza atricornis Mg. in relation to leguminous plants. Scient. Rep. Kyoto Prefec. Univ.(Agric.) 18, 57–62.Google Scholar
Sehgal, V. K. (1971) Biology and host plant relationships of an oligophagous leaf miner, Phytomyza matricarie Hendel (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Quaest. entomol. 7, 255–280.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1981) Field incidence, biology and host-plant relationships of the pea leaf miner, Chromatomyia horticola (Goureau) on eleven varieties of field peas. M.Sc. thesis. G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttar Pradesh, India.Google Scholar
Spencer, K. A. (1973) Agromyzidae (Diptera) of economic importance. Series Entomologica 9, Dr. W. Junk B. V. Publishers, The Hague.Google Scholar
Srivastava, A. S. and Singh, Y. P. (1972) Bionomics and control of the pea leaf miner, Phytomyza atricornis Meig. (Agromyzidae: Diptera). Z. Agnew. Entomol. 70, 437–440.Google Scholar
Stadler, E. and Buser, H. R. (1984) Defense chemicals in leaf surface wax synergistically stimulate oviposition by a phytophagous insect. Experientia 40, 1157–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiling, P. D., Brodbeck, B. V. and Strong, D. R. (1982) Foliar nitrogen and larval parasitism as determinants of leaf miner distribution patterns on Spartina alterniflora. Ecol. Entomol. 7, 447–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tandon, S. K. (1971) Notes on the biology of Phytomyza atricornis Meigen, a common leaf miner of cruciferous plants. Agra Univ. J. Res. (Sci.) 20, 47–68.Google Scholar
Tester, C. F. (1977) Constituents of soybean cultivars differing in insect resistance. Phytochem. 16, 1899–1902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tschirnhaus von, M. V. (1981) Die Halmund Minierfliegen im Grenzbereich LandMeer der Nordsee. Spixiana 6, 1–405.Google Scholar
Visser, J. H. (1986) Host odour perception in phytophagous insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 31, 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar