Advertisement

Resistance in Peas, Pisum Sativum L., Against Pea Leaf Miner, Chromatomyia Horticola (Goureau) (Diptera: Agromyzidae): Biology, Feeding And Ovipositional Preferences

  • A. Sen
  • V. K. Sehgal
Article

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.

Key Words

Pisum sativum resistance Chromatomyia horticola Diptera Agromyzidae 

Résumé

Des études sur le développement biologique ainsi que sur les préférences 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 résistance 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 marquées puisque la plupart de celles-ci ont eu une valeur relativement forte pour l’indice de succès 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 résistance 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. Il est suggéré que la base physiologique de la résistance pour les deux variétés de pois, est principalement la non-préferénce et l’antibiose.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahmad T. and Gupta R. L. (1941) The pea leaf miner, Phytomyza atricornis (Meigen), in India. Indian J. Entomol. 3, 37–49.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Dethier V. G. (1947) Chemical Insect Attractants and Repellants. Blackiston, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  4. Dethier V. G. (1982) Mechanisms of host-plant recognition. Entomol. exp. appl. 31, 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Hopkin A. D. (1917) A discussion of C. G. Hewitt’s paper on “Insect behaviour”. J. econ. Entomol. 10, 92–93.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Melis A. (1935) Contributo alla conoscenza morfologica e biologi ca della Phytomyza atricornis Meig. Redia 21, 205–262.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Painter R. H. (1958) Resistance of plants to insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 3, 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Prokopy R. J. and Owens E. D. (1983) Visual detection of plants by herbivorous insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 28, 337–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sach J. (1860) Vegetationsversuche mit Ausschluss des Bodens uber die Nahrstoffe und sonstigen Ernahrungsbedingungen von Mais, Bohnen, und anderen Pflanzen. Landw. Versuchs Stat. 2, 219–268.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Spencer K. A. (1973) Agromyzidae (Diptera) of economic importance. Series Entomologica 9, Dr. W. Junk B. V. Publishers, The Hague.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Tester C. F. (1977) Constituents of soybean cultivars differing in insect resistance. Phytochem. 16, 1899–1902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tschirnhaus von M. V. (1981) Die Halm- und Minierfliegen im Grenzbereich LandMeer der Nordsee. Spixiana 6, 1–405.Google Scholar
  28. Visser J. H. (1986) Host odour perception in phytophagous insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 31, 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ICIPE 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Sen
    • 1
  • V. K. Sehgal
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Entomology G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and TechnologyPantnagarIndia

Personalised recommendations