Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae): What Relationships with and Morpho-Physiological Effects on the Plants It Develops on?

Abstract

Although many crops have developed several adaptation mechanisms that allow them to defend against limiting factors, some biotic and abiotic stresses may cause reversible or irreversible changes in plants. Among the biotic stresses, the whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) is probably one of the main important pests that negatively affect several vegetable crops that are grown in greenhouses. The present study evaluated its impact on the morphology and physiology of two solanaceous plants, i.e., tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and eggplant (S. melongena L.), under laboratory conditions. The results showed that, for tomatoes, plant height, shoot dry weight, leaf area, and indirect chlorophyll content were strongly reduced in infested plants, compared to the uninfested control, by 39.36%, 32.37%, 61.01%, and 37.85%, respectively. The same has been shown for eggplant, although the reduction percentages of plant height, root dry weight, and indirect chlorophyll content were less marked (i.e., 16.15%, 31.65%, and 11.39%, respectively). These results could represent interesting information for a better understanding of the B. tabaci influence on plant growth, as well as for the development of management strategies to successfully control its infestations in a cropping system.

Can Macrolophus pygmaeus (Hemiptera: Miridae) Mitigate the Damage Caused to Plants by Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae)?

“…It is well known that infestation by B. tabaci affects the quantity and quality of yields in many varieties of vegetable crops [ 55 ]. The means by which whitefly infestations exert a negative effect on horticultural species (eggplant and tomato) have also been confirmed in a recent study [ 33 ]. The findings reported here show that the presence of M. pygmaeus reduces the negative effects of the whitefly on plants [ 38 , 46 ], resulting in significantly higher values of indirect chlorophyll content, chlorophyll fluorescence, leaf area, and shoot dry weight in the PIBM condition compared with the PIB.…”

“…This study considered the principal morphological and physiological traits (e.g., plant height, dry plant biomass, chlorophyll content, etc.) [ 33 ] and found that eggplant and tomato plants infested by the whitefly showed strong and significant reductions in height, shoot dry weight, leaf area, and indirect chlorophyll content, though with different levels of intensity among the two plant species. Starting from the above results, and in order to widen our knowledge of multitrophic interaction mechanisms related to the impact of whiteflies on plant biology, a further trophic level in the analysis was added.…”

The relationship between the infestation of Whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) and the chlorophyll content in different Eggplant varieties

“…The reduced levels of chlorophyll may be because of sucking on plant sap containing plant pigments. Due to the lowering level of chlorophyll content as a result of B.tabaci feeding compatible with (19,20) who mentioned that the concentration of chlorophyll changes in the plant during its growth or as a result of external pressure, such as infestation with sup-sucking insects that feed on plants sap 21,23 .…”

“…Where D represents the spectrophotometer reading, 20.2 and 8.02 mg/g referred to the absorbance of chlorophyll a and b at 645 nm and 663 nm, respectively. % reduction of chlorophyll was calculated by the equation below as described by Farina et al 23 :…”

Geographic distribution of Bemisia tabaci species in Sicily and patterns in facultative endosymbiont community composition

“…Bemisia tabaci is a global sap‐sucking insect pest causing severe damage to many agricultural crops and ornamental plant species (De Barro et al, 2011; Farina et al, 2022). The taxonomy of B. tabaci is an ongoing area of research, with the current consensus being that it represents a cryptic species complex consisting of over 40 morphologically indistinguishable species (Dinsdale et al, 2010; Tay et al, 2012).…”