Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:59:20.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Insect Ecology of Silverleaf Nightshade

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Richard D. Goeden
Richard D. Goeden*
Affiliation:
Division of Biological Control, University of California Citrus Research Center and Agricultural Experiment Station, Riverside
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The phytophagous insects associated with silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium Cav.) were surveyed in southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and southwestern Texas. In California, this introduced weed was largely free of deleterious insect injury. Its insect associates mostly were sap or foliage-feeding species that attack a wide range of plants, a few were species restricted to Solanaceae, and several were species economically important as crop pests. The insect fauna became increasingly complex in species diversity and plant parts attacked as the survey progressed eastward from California towards southwestern Texas and the presumed native habitats of this weed in adjacent Mexico. The feasibility of biological control of silverleaf nightshade and the value of faunistic surveys in ascertaining the indigenous or alien status of plants are good.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 1971 , pp. 45 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

1. Benjamin, F. H. 1934. Descriptions of some native trypetid flies with notes on their habits. U. S. Dep. Agr. Tech. Bull. 401:17–20. 95 p. Google Scholar
2. Botschantzev, V. P. 1969. [The genus Salsola; a concise history of its development and dispersal]. Bot. J., Acad. Sci. U.S.S.R. 54:989–1000.Google Scholar
3. Burke, H. R. 1961. Biological and distribution notes on some Texas weevils (Coleoptera, Curculionidae). Southwestern Nat. 6:195–197.Google Scholar
4. Burke, H. R. 1963. Coleoptera associated with three species of Solanum in Texas. Southwestern Nat. 8:53–56.Google Scholar
5. Burke, H. R. 1968. Pupae of the weevil tribe Anthonomini. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Mono. 5:34–36. 92 p. Google Scholar
6. Cazier, M. A. 1962. Notes on the bionomics of Zonosemata vittigera (Coquillett), a fruit fly on Solanum (Diptera: Tephritidae). Pan-Pacific Entomol. 38:181–186.Google Scholar
7. Clausen, C. P. 1936. Insect parasitism and biological control. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 29:201–223.Google Scholar
8. Clausen, C. P. 1961. Biological control of western grape leaf skeletonizer (Harrisina brillians B. and McD.) in California. Hilgardia 31:613–638.Google Scholar
9. Dillon, L. S. 1952. The Meloidae (Coleoptera) of Texas. Amer. Midland Nat. 48:330–420.Google Scholar
10. Foote, R. H. 1960. Notes on some North American Tephritidae, with descriptions of two new genera and two new species. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 73:107–118.Google Scholar
11. Frick, K. E. 1964. Some endemic insects that feed on introduced tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) in western United States. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 57:707–710.Google Scholar
12. Frick, K. E. and Hawkes, R. B. 1970. Additional insects that feed upon tansy ragwort, Senecio jacobaea, an introduced weedy plant in western United States. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 63:1085–1089.Google Scholar
13. Goeden, R. D. 1968. Russian thistle as an alternate host to economically important insects. Weed Sci. 16:102–103.Google Scholar
14. Goeden, R. D., Fleschner, C. A., and Ricker, D. W. 1967. Biological control of prickly pear cacti on Santa Cruz Island, California. Hilgardia 38:579–606.Google Scholar
15. Goeden, R. D. and Ricker, D. W. 1968. The phytophagous insect fauna of Russian thistle (Salsola kali var. tenuifolia) in southern California. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 61:67–72.Google Scholar
16. Harper, J. L. 1965. Establishment aggression, and cohabitation in weedy species, p. 243–265. In Baker, H. G. and Stebbins, G. L. (ed.), The Genetics of Colonizing Species. Acad. Press, New York, N. Y. 588 p.Google Scholar
17. Henderson, M. and Anderson, J. G. 1966. Common weeds in South Africa. Dept. Agr. Tech. Serv., Botan. Res. Inst., Botan. Survey, Mem. No. 37:276. 440 p. Google Scholar
18. Huffaker, C. B. 1957. Fundamentals of biological control of weeds. Hilgardia 27:101–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Kearny, T. H. and Peebles, R. H. 1964. Arizona Flora. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 108 p.Google Scholar
20. Lloyd, D. C. 1956. Remarks on a possible biological control program with the weed Acanthospermum hispidum DC. Canadian Entomol. 88:613–622.Google Scholar
21. Mayr, E. 1965. Summary, p. 553–562. In Baker, H. G. and Stebbins, G. L. (ed.), The Genetics of Colonizing Species. Acad. Press, New York, N. Y. 588 p.Google Scholar
22. Robbins, W. W. 1940. Alien plants growing without cultivation in California. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 637:82–83. 128 p. Google Scholar
23. Robbins, W. W., Bellue, M. K., and Ball, W. S. 1951. Weeds of California. California St. Dep. Agr., Sacramento. 547 p.Google Scholar
24. Shreve, F. and Wiggins, I. L. 1964. Vegetation and Flora of the Sonoran Desert. Vol. 2. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, California. 1326 p.Google Scholar
25. Southwood, T. R. E. 1961. The number of species of insect associated with various trees. J. Anim. Ecol. 30:1–8.Google Scholar
26. Tideman, A. F. 1960. Tomato weed in South Australia (Solanum elaeagnifolium Cav.). Proc. 2nd Australian Weed Conf. 64:3.Google Scholar
27. Weed Society of America. 1966. Report of the Terminology Committee. Weeds 14:346–386.Google Scholar
28. Werner, F. G. 1958. Studies in the genus Epicauta of the North American Continent (Meloidae). II. The Uniforma-group. Coleopt. Bull. 12:1–19.Google Scholar
29. Wilson, F. 1964. The biological control of weeds. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 9:225–244.Google Scholar