Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 656–671 | Cite as

Choice of Tethering Material Influences the Magnitude and Significance of Treatment Effects in Whitefly Electrical Penetration Graph Recordings

  • Quentin Chesnais
  • Kerry E. MauckEmail author


The electrical penetration graphing or electropenetrography (EPG) technique is essential for understanding interactions of hemipteran insects with their host plants. Typically, 10–12.5 μm diameter gold wire is used as the tethering material in EPG studies. This wire was originally chosen based on suitability for aphids, but application of the EPG technique to other insects necessitates testing of alternative tethering materials that permit natural foraging and probing behavior. Whiteflies are one group for which EPG studies are increasing, with most researchers using 10 or 12.5 μm diameter gold wire even though these insects are smaller than aphids and very different in mobility. However, 2.5 μm diameter Wollaston process platinum wire has been used for a subset of EPG studies and seems to permit more natural movement and feeding behaviors. Here, we compared EPG variables derived from recordings of the sweet potato whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) tethered with 12.5 μm diameter gold wire or 2.5 μm diameter platinum wire. On a suitable host, gold-tethered whiteflies had reduced phloem phases, which are indicative of host plant acceptance, compared to platinum-tethered whiteflies. When we included a treatment known to reduce plant quality (methyl jasmonate application), platinum-tethered whiteflies exhibited expected reductions in EPG variables related to host acceptance, while gold-tethered whiteflies either had no response, or the opposite response. Our results indicate that tethering material strongly influences the outcome of EPG experiments, with important consequences for evaluations of host plant resistance, putative instances of plant virus manipulation, and feeding variables associated with virus transmission.


Electrical penetration graph host plant resistance probing behavior potential drop phloem ingestion insect tethering 



This work was supported by startup funding from the University of California, Riverside to K.E. Mauck. We are grateful to Gregory Walker for many productive discussions, which contributed to the ideas presented in this manuscript. We are also thankful to Ian Wright for assistance with plant and insect culture, and for producing the images of gold wire and platinum wire tethered whiteflies for this manuscript.

Supplementary material

10905_2018_9705_MOESM1_ESM.docx (631 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 631 kb)


  1. Almeida RPP, Backus EA (2004) Stylet penetration behaviors of Graphocephala atropunctata (Signoret) (Hemiptera, Cicadellidae): EPG waveform characterization and quantification. Ann Entomol Soc Am 97:838–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Backus EA (1994) History, development, and applications of the AC electronic monitoring system for insect feeding. In: Ellsbury MM, Backus EA, Ullman DE (eds) History, development, and application of AC electronic insect feeding monitors. Entomological Society of America, Lanham, pp 1–51Google Scholar
  3. Backus EA, Bennett WH (2009) The AC-DC correlation monitor: new EPG design with flexible input resistors to detect both R and emf components for any piercing-sucking hemipteran. J Insect Physiol 55:869–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Backus EA, Rangasamy M, Stamm M, Mcauslane HJ, Cherry R (2013) Waveform library for chinch bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Blissidae): characterization of electrical penetration graph waveforms at multiple input impedances. Ann Entomol Soc Am 106:524–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonani JP, Fereres A, Garzo E, Miranda MP, Appezzato-da-Gloria B, Lopes JRS (2010) Characterization of electrical penetration graphs of the Asian citrus psyllid, Diaphorina citri, in sweet orange seedlings. Entomol Exp Appl 134:35–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boquel S, Delayen C, Couty A, Giordanengo P, Ameline A (2012) Modulation of aphid vector activity by potato virus Y on in vitro potato plants. Plant Dis 96:82–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broekgaarden C, Riviere P, Steenhuis G, del sol Cuenca M, Kos M, Vosman B (2012) Phloem-specific resistance in Brassica oleracea against the whitefly Aleyrodes proletella. Entomol Exp Appl 142:153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calatayud PA, Rahbé Y, Tjallingii WF, Tertuliano M, Rü B (1994) Electrically recorded feeding behaviour of cassava mealybug on host and non-host plants. Entomol Exp Appl 72:219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castle S, Palumbo J, Merten P, Cowden C, Prabhaker N (2017) Effects of foliar and systemic insecticides on whitefly transmission and incidence of cucurbit yellow stunting disorder virus. Pest Manag Sci 73:1462–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cervantes FA, Backus EA (2018) EPG waveform library for Graphocephala atropunctata (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae): effect of adhesive, input resistor, and voltage levels on waveform appearance and stylet probing behaviors. J Insect Physiol 109:21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cervantes FA, Backus EA, Godfrey L, Wallis C, Akbar W, Clark TL, Rojas MG (2017) Correlation of electropenetrography waveforms from Lygus lineolaris (Hemiptera: Miridae) feeding on cotton squares with chemical evidence of inducible tannins. J Econ Entomol 110:2068–2075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Civolani S, Cassanelli S, Chicca M, Rison JL, Bassi A, Alvarez JM, Annan IB, Parrella G, Giorgini M, Fano EA (2014) An EPG study of the probing behavior of adult Bemisia tabaci biotype Q (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) following exposure to cyantraniliprole. J Econ Entomol 107:910–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cornara D, Garzo E, Morente M, Moreno A, Alba-Tercedor J, Fereres A (2018) EPG combined with micro-CT and video recording reveals new insights on the feeding behavior of Philaenus spumarius. PLoS One 13:e0199154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crompton DS, Ode PJ (2010) Feeding behavior analysis of the soybean aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) on resistant soybean ‘Dowling. J Econ Entomol 103:648–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cui H, Sun Y, Su J, Li C, Ge F (2012) Reduction in the fitness of Bemisia tabaci fed on three previously infested tomato genotypes differing in the jasmonic acid pathway. Environ Entomol 41:1443–1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ebert TA, Backus EA, Cid M, Fereres A, Rogers ME (2015) A new SAS program for behavioral analysis of electrical penetration graph data. Comput Electron Agric 116:80–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giordanengo P (2014) EPG-Calc: a PHP-based script to calculate electrical penetration graph (EPG) parameters. Arthropod Plant Interact 8:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. He Y, Zhao J, Zheng Y, Weng Q, Biondi A, Desneux N, Wu K (2013) Assessment of potential sublethal effects of various insecticides on key biological traits of the tobacco whitefly, Bemisia tabaci. Int J Biol Sci 9:246–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. He W-B, Li J, Liu S-S et al (2015) Differential profiles of direct and indirect modification of vector feeding behaviour by a plant virus. Sci Rep 5:7682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Helden M Van (1995) The resistance of lettuce to the aphid Nasonovia ribisnigri. Wageningen Agricultural University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  21. Himler AG, Adachi-Hagimori T, Bergen JE, Kozuch A, Kelly SE, Tabashnik BE, Chiel E, Duckworth VE, Dennehy TJ, Zchori-Fein E, Hunter MS (2011) Rapid spread of a bacterial symbiont in an invasive whitefly is driven by fitness benefits and female bias. Science 332:254–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Invasive Species Specialist Group (2018) Global Invasive Species Database. Accessed 7 Aug 2018
  23. Janssen JAM, Tjallingii WF, van Lenteren JC (1989) Electrical recording and ultrastructure of stylet penetration by the greenhouse whitefly. Entomol Exp Appl 52:69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jiang YX, Walker GP (2001) Pathway phase waveform characteristics correlated with length and rate of stylet advancement and partial stylet withdrawal in AC electrical penetration graphs of adult whiteflies. Entomol Exp Appl 101:233–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jiang YX, Walker GP (2003) Electrical penetration graphs of the nymphal stage of Bemisia argentifolii. Entomol Exp Appl 109:101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jiang YX, Walker GP (2007) Identification of phloem sieve elements as the site of resistance to silverleaf whitefly in resistant alfalfa genotypes. Entomol Exp Appl 125:307–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jiang YX, Lei H, Collar JL, Martin B, Muñiz M, Fereres A (1999) Probing and feeding behavior of two distinct biotypes of Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on tomato plants. J Econ Entomol 92:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jiang YX, Blas CDE, Barrios L et al (2000) Correlation between whitefly (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) feeding behavior and transmission of tomato yellow leaf curl virus. Ann Entomol Soc Am 93:573–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jiang YX, Nombela G, Muñiz M (2001) Analysis by DC – EPG of the resistance to Bemisia tabaci on an mi -tomato line. Entomol Exp Appl 99:295–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jiao X, Xie W, Guo L, Liu B, Wang S, Wu Q, Zhang Y (2014) Differing effects of cabbage and pepper on B and Q putative species of Bemisia tabaci. J Pest Sci (2004) 87:629–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jiao X, Xie W, Zeng Y, Wang C, Liu B, Wang S, Wu Q, Zhang Y (2018) Lack of correlation between host choice and feeding efficiency for the B and Q putative species of Bemisia tabaci on four pepper genotypes. J Pest Sci (2004) 91:133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jin S, Chen ZM, Backus EA, Sun XL, Xiao B (2012) Characterization of EPG waveforms for the tea green leafhopper, Empoasca vitis Göthe (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae), on tea plants and their correlation with stylet activities. J Insect Physiol 58:1235–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson DD, Walker GP (1999) Intracellular punctures by the adult whitefly Bemisia argentifolii on DC and AC electronic feeding monitors. Entomol Exp Appl 92:257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson DD, Walker GP, Creamer R (2002) Stylet penetration behavior resulting in inoculation of a semipersistently transmitted closterovirus by the whitefly Bemisia argentifolii. Entomol Exp Appl 102:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lei H, Tjallingii WF, Van Lenteren JC, Xu RM (1996) Stylet penetration by larvae of the greenhouse whitefly on cucumber. Entomol Exp Appl 79:77–84Google Scholar
  36. Lei H, Tjallingii WF, Van Lenteren JC (1997) Effect of tethering during EPG recorded probing by adults of the greenhouse whitefly. J Appl Entomol 121:211–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lei H, Tjallingii WF, Van Lenteren JC (1998) Probing and feeding characteristics of the greenhouse whitefly in association with host-plant acceptance and whitefly strains. Entomol Exp Appl 88:73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lei H, Van Lenteren JC, Tjallingii WF (1999) Analysis of resistance in tomato and sweet pepper against the greenhouse whitefly using electrically monitored and visually observed probing and feeding behaviour. Entomol Exp Appl 92:299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lei H, Van Lenteren JC, Xu RM (2001) Effects of plant tissue on the acceptance of four greenhouse vegetable host by the greenhouse whitefly: an electrical penetration graph (EPG) study. Eur J Entomol 98:31–36Google Scholar
  40. Liu B, Yan F, Chu D, Pan H, Jiao X, Xie W, Wu Q, Wang S, Xu B, Zhou X, Zhang Y (2012) Difference in feeding behaviors of two invasive whiteflies on host plants with different suitability: implication for competitive displacement. Int J Biol Sci 8:697–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liu B, Preisser EL, Chu D, Pan H, Xie W, Wang S, Wu Q, Zhou X, Zhang Y (2013a) Multiple forms of vector manipulation by a plant-infecting virus: Bemisia tabaci and tomato yellow leaf curl virus. J Virol 87:4929–4937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Liu B, Preisser EL, Jiao X, Pan H, Xie W, Wang S, Wu Q, Zhang Y (2013b) Plant-mediated changes in the feeding behavior of an invasive whitefly. Environ Entomol 42:980–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Liu B, Preisser EL, Shi X, Wu H, Li C, Xie W, Wang S, Wu Q, Zhang Y (2017) Plant defence negates pathogen manipulation of vector behaviour. Funct Ecol 31:1574–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lu S, Li J, Wang X, Song D, Bai R, Shi Y, Gu Q, Kuo YW, Falk B, Yan F (2017) A semipersistent plant virus differentially manipulates feeding behaviors of different sexes and biotypes of its whitefly vector. Viruses 9:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Luan J-B, Yao D-M, Zhang T, Walling LL, Yang M, Wang YJ, Liu SS (2013) Suppression of terpenoid synthesis in plants by a virus promotes its mutualism with vectors. Ecol Lett 16:390–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lucini T, Panizzi AR (2016) Waveform characterization of the soybean stem feeder Edessa meditabunda: overcoming the challenge of wiring pentatomids for EPG. Entomol Exp Appl 158:118–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lucini T, Panizzi AR (2018) Electropenetrography (EPG): a breakthrough tool unveiling stink bug (Pentatomidae) feeding on plants. Neotrop Entomol 47:6–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Maluta NKP, Fereres A, Lopes JRS (2017) Settling preferences of the whitefly vector Bemisia tabaci on infected plants varies with virus family and transmission mode. Entomol Exp Appl 165:138–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Maluta NKP, Fereres A, Lopes JRS (2018) Plant-mediated indirect effects of two viruses with different transmission modes on Bemisia tabaci feeding behavior and fitness. J Pest Sci (2004)Google Scholar
  50. Matkin OA, Chandler PA (1957) The UC-type soil mixes. In: baker KF (ed) the U.C. system for producing healthy container-grown plants through the use of clean soil, clean stock, and sanitation. University of California, division of. Agric Sci:68–85Google Scholar
  51. McDaniel T, Tosh CR, Gatehouse AMR et al (2016) Novel resistance mechanisms of a wild tomato against the glasshouse whitefly. Agron Sustain Dev 36:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McLean DL, Kinsey MG (1964) A technique for electronically recording aphid feeding and salivation. Nature 202:1358–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McLean DL, Kinsey MG (1967) Probing behavior of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. I. Definitive correlation of electronically recorded waveforms with aphid probing activities. Ann Entomol Soc Am 60:400–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moreno-Delafuente A, Garzo E, Moreno A, Fereres A (2013) A plant virus manipulates the behavior of its whitefly vector to enhance its transmission efficiency and spread. PLoS One 8:e61543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Navas-Castillo J, Fiallo-Olivé E, Sánchez-Campos S (2011) Emerging virus diseases transmitted by whiteflies. Annu Rev Phytopathol 49:219–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ning W, Shi X, Liu B, et al (2015) Transmission of tomato yellow leaf curl virus by Bemisia tabaci as affected by whitefly sex and biotypeGoogle Scholar
  57. Pompon J, Quiring D, Goyer C, Giordanengo P, Pelletier Y (2011) A phloem-sap feeder mixes phloem and xylem sap to regulate osmotic potential. J Insect Physiol 57:1317–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Found Stat Comput URL
  59. Rodríguez-López MJ, Garzo E, Bonani JP, Fereres A, Fernández-Muñoz R, Moriones E (2011) Whitefly resistance traits derived from the wild tomato Solanum pimpinellifolium affect the preference and feeding behavior of Bemisia tabaci and reduce the spread of tomato yellow leaf curl virus. Phytopathology 101:1191–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rodríguez-López MJ, Garzo E, Bonani JP, Fernández-Muñoz R, Moriones E, Fereres A (2012) Acylsucrose-producing tomato plants forces Bemisia tabaci to shift its preferred settling and feeding site. PLoS One 7:e33064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Seo MJ, Yang JO, Yoon C et al (2007) Differentiation in feeding behaviour of biotypes B and Q of Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) against three insecticides. Korean J Appl Entomol 46:401–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shao-hua LU, Jing-jing LI, Ming-yang LIU et al (2015) Comparative analysis of the competitiveness cetween B and Q biotypes of Bemisia tabaci under laboratory conditions. Sci Agric Sin 48:1339–1347Google Scholar
  63. Shi X, Pan H, Zhang H et al (2014) Bemisia tabaci Q carrying tomato yellow leaf curl virus strongly suppresses host plant defenses. Sci Rep 4:5230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Spiller NJ, Koenders L, Tjallingii WF (1990) Xylem ingestion by aphids - a strategy for maintaining water balance. Entomol Exp Appl 55:101–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thaler JS, Stout MJ, Karban R, Duffey SS (1996) Exogenous jasmonates simulate insect wounding in tomato plants (Lycopersicon esculentum) in the laboratory and field. J Chem Ecol 22:1767–1781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Thaler JS, Karban R, Ullman DE, Boege K, Bostock RM (2002) Cross-talk between jasmonate and salicylate plant defense pathways: effects on several plant parasites. Oecologia 131:227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tjallingii WF (1978) Electronic recording of penetration behaviour by aphids. Entomol Exp Appl 24:521–530Google Scholar
  68. Tjallingii WF (1985) Electrical nature of recorded signals during stylet penetration by aphids. Entomol Exp Appl 38:177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tjallingii WF (1986) Wire effects on aphids during electrical recording of stylet penetration. Entomol Exp Appl 40:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tjallingii WF (1988) Electrical recording of stylet penetration activities. In: Aphids: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 95–108Google Scholar
  71. Tjallingii WF, Hogen Esch T (1993) Fine structure of aphid stylet routes in plant tissues in correlation with EPG signals. Physiol Entomol 18:317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tosh CR, Brogan B (2014) Control of tomato whiteflies using the confusion effect of plant odours. Agron Sustain Dev 35:183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Traw MB, Bergelson J (2003) Interactive effects of jasmonic acid, calicylic acid, and gibberellin on induction of trichomes in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 133:1367–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Walker GP, Janssen JAM (2000) Electronic recording of whitefly (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) feeding and oviposition behavior. In: Walker GP, Backus EA (eds) Principles and Applications of Electronic Monitoring and Other Techniques in the Study of Homopteran Feeding Behavior, XIX Intern. Thomas Say Publications in Entomology, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, pp 172–200Google Scholar
  75. Walker GP, Perring TM (1994) Feeding and oviposition behavior of whiteflies (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) interpreted from AC electronic feeding monitor waveforms. Ann Entomol Soc Am 87:363–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Walling LL (2008) Avoiding effective defenses: strategies employed by phloem-feeding insects. Plant Physiol 146:859–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yang JO, Kim EH, Yoon C et al (2009) Comparison of feeding behavior of B and Q biotypes of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) against red pepper and tomato varieties. Korean J Appl Entomol 48:179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yin H, Di WXY, Xue K et al (2010) Impacts of transgenic Bt cotton on the stylet penetration behaviors of Bemisia tabaci biotype B: evidence from laboratory experiments. Insect Sci 17:344–352Google Scholar
  79. Zarate SI, Kempema LA, Walling LL (2006) Silverleaf whitefly induces salicylic acid defenses and suppresses effectual jasmonic acid defenses. Plant Physiol 143:866–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zhang T, Luan JB, Qi JF et al (2012) Begomovirus-whitefly mutualism is achieved through repression of plant defences by a virus pathogenicity factor. Mol Ecol 21:1294–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zhang W, Liu B, Zhang S et al (2016) Comparison of feeding behavior between two Bemisia tabaci strains using EPG technique. Sci Agric Sin 49:2544–2552Google Scholar
  82. Zhou JS, Chen AYS, Drucker M, Lopez NH, Carpenter A, Ng JCK (2017) Whitefly feeding behavior and retention of a foregut-borne crinivirus exposed to artificial diets with different pH values. Insect Sci 24:1079–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EntomologyUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations