Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T12:53:17.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

SCREENING FOR ANTIXENOSIS RESISTANCE TO FLEA BEETLES, PHYLLOTRETA CRUCIFERAE (GOEZE) (COLEOPTERA: CHRYSOMELIDAE), IN RAPESEED AND RELATED CRUCIFERS1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

P. Palaniswamy
Affiliation:
Agriculture Canada Research Station, 195 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2M9
R.J. Lamb
Affiliation:
Agriculture Canada Research Station, 195 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2M9
P.B.E. McVetty
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2

Abstract

A laboratory method to screen crucifer seedlings for antixenosis resistance to flea beetles, Phyllotreta cruciferae (Goeze), is described. The method utilizes a plexiglass arena with a foam base to hold 30- by 50-mm vials containing individual seedlings of 10 entries (10 seedlings per entry) in a 10 × 10 layout. In each arena, nine test entries and a standard entry are compared in a Latin square design. Flea beetles are allowed to feed on seedlings for about 30 h, and then the damage to individual seedlings is estimated using a visual rating scale. A rating of one arena can be completed in about 15 min. Seedlings at the arena edge often suffer more damage than those in the centre of the arena, but the effect of this variability in damage is minimized by the Latin square design. Use of border (guard) rows and columns does not eliminate the edge effects. The use of arenas without borders, and a single damage rating where the damage to the standard entry is about 50% of the cotyledon area, are considered ideal for initial screening to identify sources of flea beetle resistance. The method detects entries that differ by as little as 18% damage using a single arena with 10 replicate seedlings per entry. No significant antixenosis was found among 19 cultivars of Brassica napus L. and B. campestris L., but one accession of B. carinata L. and two accessions of Sinapis alba (L.) exhibited antixenosis.

Résumé

On trouvera ici la description d’une méthode expérimentale destinée à identifier les jeunes plants de crucifères résistants à l’Altise des crucifères, Phyllotreta cruciferae (Goeze). La technique nécessite une arène de plexiglas à fond de mousse de plastique pouvant contenir des fioles de 30 par 50 mm contenant 10 séries de jeunes plants (10 plants par série) selon un arrangement de 10 × 10. Dans chaque arène, neuf séries expérimentales et une série témoin sont comparées dans un arrangement de carré Latin. Les altises sont mises en présence des plants durant environ 30 h et les dommages à chaque plant sont ensuite estimés au moyen d’une échelle visuelle. L’estimation des dommages dans une arène demande environ 15 min. Les plants situés en bordure de l’arène subissent souvent plus de dommages que ceux du centre de l’arène, mais l’effet de cette variabilité est minimisé par l’arrangement en carré latin. La disposition de rangées et de colonnes en bordure (gardes) n’élimine pas l’effet de bordure. L’utilisation d’arènes sans gardes et d’un seul coefficient de dommage, dont la valeur est déterminée en fonction de la série témoin quand environ 50% de la région du cotylédon est affectée, constituent les conditions idéales de tri initial de plants résistants à l’altise. La méthode permet de reconnaître les séries dont les dommages varient d’aussi peu que 18% en utilisant une seule arène contenant 10 jeunes plants par série. Aucune résistance significative n’a été trouvée chez 19 cultivars de Brassica napus L. et B. campestris L., mais un cas d’antixénose a été constaté chez B. carinata L. et deux cas chez Sinapis alba (L.).

[Traduit par la rédaction]

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1992

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

Bodnaryk, R.P. 1991. Developmental profile of sinalbin (p-hydroxybenzyl glucosinolate) in mustard seedlings, Sinapis alba L., and its relationship to insect resistance. Journal of Chemical Ecology 17: 15431556.Google Scholar
Bodnaryk, R.P., and Lamb, R.J.. 1991. Mechanisms of resistance to the flea beetle, Phyllotreta cruciferae (Goeze) in yellow mustard seedlings, Sinapis alba L. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 71: 1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, C.H., and Rudder, J.D.. 1966. Resistance of 30 commercial cruciferous varieties to the striped flea beetle, Phyllotreta striolata. Journal of Economic Entomology 59: 769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, C.H., and Sullivan, M.J.. 1974. The use of resistant varieties and other cultural practices for the control of insects on crucifers in North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 449: 31 pp.Google Scholar
Burgess, L., and Wiens, J.E.. 1980. Dispensing allylisothiocyanate as an attractant for trapping crucifer-feeding flea beetles. The Canadian Entomologist 112: 9397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelson, J.V., and Dickson, M.H.. 1988. Resistance to insects by cabbage lines developed in New York when grown in south Texas. Crop Protection 7: 391395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, P.R., and Hardman, J.A.. 1975. Laboratory methods for studying non-preference resistance to cabbage root fly in cruciferous crops. Annals of Applied Biology 79: 253264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoagland, D.R., and Arnon, D.I.. 1950. The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. California Agricultural Experiment Station Circular 347: 32 pp.Google Scholar
Kogan, M., and Ortman, E.F.. 1978. Antixenosis — a new term proposed to define Painter's “non-preference” modality of resistance. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 24: 175176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, R.J. 1984. Effects of flea beetles, Phyllotreta spp. (Chrysomelidae: Coleoptera), on the survival, growth, seed yield and quality of canola, rape and yellow mustard. The Canadian Entomologist 116: 269280.Google Scholar
Lamb, R.J. 1988. Assessing the susceptibility of crucifer seedlings to flea beetle (Phyllotreta spp.) damage. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 68: 8593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, R.J. 1989. Entomology of oilseed Brassica crops. Annual Review of Entomology 34: 211229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, R.J., and Palaniswamy, P.. 1990. Host discrimination by a crucifer-feeding flea beetle, Phyllotreta striolata (F.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). The Canadian Entomologist 122: 817824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, R.J., and Turnock, W.J.. 1982. Economics of insecticidal control of flea beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) attacking rape in Canada. The Canadian Entomologist 114: 827840.Google Scholar
Palaniswamy, P., and Lamb, R.J.. 1992. Host preferences of flea beetles, Phyllotreta cruciferae and P. striolata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), for crucifer seedlings. Journal of Economic Entomology 85: 743752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Painter, R.H. 1951. Insect Resistance in Crop Plants. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS. 520 pp.Google Scholar
Putnam, L.G. 1977. Response of four Brassica seed crop species to attack by the crucifer flea beetle, Phyllotreta cruciferae. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 57: 987989.Google Scholar
SAS Institute. 1985. SAS User's Guide: Statistics, Version 5 ed. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Shelton, A.M., Hoy, C.W., North, R.C., Dickson, M.H., and Barnard, J.. 1988. Analysis of resistance in cabbage varieties to damage by Lepidoptera and Thysanoptera. Journal of Economic Entomology 81: 634640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R.R., and Rohlf, F.J.. 1981. Biometry. Freeman. San Francisco, CA. 859 pp.Google Scholar
Weiss, M.J., McLeod, P., Schatz, B.G., and Hanson, B.K.. 1991. Potential for insecticidal management of flea beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on canola. Journal of Economic Entomology 84: 15971603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiseman, B.R. 1985. Types and mechanisms of host plant resistance to insect attack. Insect Science and its Application 6: 239242.Google Scholar