Effects of planting date, varieties and insecticides on chickpea leaf miner (Liriomyza cicerina R.) infestation and the parasitoid Opius monilicornis F.

Bouhssini, M. El; Mardini, K.; Malhotra, R. S.; Joubi, Abdallah; Kagka, N.

doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2007.11.006

Cited by 15 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to genotypes having multipinnate leaf shapes, some breeding lines with normal leaf shape from ICARDA were resistant to leaf miner. Comparable results were given in the study of El-Bouhssini et al (2008). In the present study, however, the resistance levels in normal leaf shaped-genotypes were not as high as multipinnate leaf shaped-genotype AWC 612-1M (Fig.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 63%

“…(Diptera: Agromyzidae)] is one of the most widespread insect pests in the Mediterranean region (Reed et al, 1987;Singh & Weigand, 1994;El -Bouhssini et al, 2008) including Turkey (Giray, 1970;Karman et al, 1970;Toker et al, 2010;Toker et al, 2012b). It was recorded in the former USSR, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan (Van der Maesen, 1979;Reed et al, 1987).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improvement of leaf miner [Liriomyza cicerina Rond. (Diptera: Agromyzidae)] resistance in Cicer species

İkten

Ceylan

Toker

2015

Turkish Journal of Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improvement of leaf miner [Liriomyza cicerina SummaryChickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) leaf miner [Liriomyza cicerina Rond. (Diptera: Agromyzidae)] is one of the main insect pests of chickpea since it causes substantial yield losses in Turkey. The most efficient practical, environmental and economical solutions to overcome leaf miner damage in chickpea is the utilization of resistant cultivars. The present study aims selecting resistance for leaf miner via mutation breeding in two Cicer species viz. C. arietinum L. and C. reticulatum Ladiz. Genotypes were irradiated with 200, 300 and 400 Gy gamma rays. A total of 20 genotypes consisting of eight mutants, nine breeding lines, and two susceptible controls and one resistant control were compared for resistance to leaf miner for two years. A highly pigmented mutant of C. reticulatum with multipinnate leaves was highly resistant to leaf miner comparing with the controls and breeding lines under field conditions. It may be useful to develop cultivars for resistance to leaf miner since C. reticulatum can be easily crossed with the cultivated chickpeas. Keywords: Chickpea, Cicer reticulatum, leaf miner, Liriomyza cicerina ÖzetNohut (Cicer arietinum L.) yaprak galeri sineği [Liriomyza cicerina Rond. (Diptera: Agromyzidae)] dikkate değer verim kayıplarına yol açtığı için Türkiye'deki en önemli ve yaygın zararlılardan biridir. Nohutta yaprak galeri sineği zararının üstesinden gelmek için en etkili, pratik, çevreci ve ekonomik çözümlerden biri dayanıklı çeşitler kullanılmasıdır. Bu çalışma C. arietinum ve C. reticulatum türlerinin dahil olduğu iki Cicer türünde mutasyon ıslahı ile yaprak galeri sineğine dayanıklı mutant seçmeyi amaçlamıştır. Genotipler 200, 300 ve 400 Gy gamma ışınları ile ışınlanmıştır. Sekiz mutant, dokuz ıslah hattı, iki hassas kontrol ve bir dayanıklı kontrolü içeren toplam 20 genotip yaprak galeri sineğine dayanıklılık için iki yıl karşılaştırılmışlardır. C. reticulatum'un koyu pigmentli ve çok yaprakcıklı bir mutantı yaprak galeri sineğine bulaşmış doğal epidemi koşullarında yaprak galeri sineğine karşı çok dayanıklı olarak bulunmuştur. C. reticulatum kültürü yapılan nohutlarla kolayca melezlenebildiği için yaprak galeri sineğine karşı dayanıklı çeşit geliştirmede kullanışlı olacaktır.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 63%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improvement of leaf miner [Liriomyza cicerina Rond. (Diptera: Agromyzidae)] resistance in Cicer species

İkten

Ceylan

Toker

2015

Turkish Journal of Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is true for parasitoids and is represented by increased abundance in low‐intensity systems (Drinkwater et al., 1995; Berry et al., 1996; Letourneau & Goldstein, 2001) although evidence to the contrary also exists (Moreby et al., 1994; Roschewitz et al., 2005). Several aspects of farming practice can influence parasitoids, including insecticide application (Kramarz & Stark, 2003; Bouhssini et al., 2008) and management effects on large‐scale and small‐scale habitat complexity (Tonhasca, 1993; Langellotto & Denno, 2004). The effects of fertilisers on parasitoids in low‐intensity and conventional systems is, however, less well understood.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tritrophic effects of organic and conventional fertilisers on a cereal‐aphid‐parasitoid system

Garratt

Leather

Wright

2010

Entomologia Exp Applicata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of parasitoids on pests varies between conventional and low‐intensity agricultural systems. Although the impacts on parasitoid natural enemies of many practices within these agricultural systems are well understood, the role of fertilisers has been less well studied. The effects of organic‐based and conventional fertilisers on Hordeum vulgare L. (Poaceae), the aphid Metopolophium dirhodum Walker (Hemiptera: Aphididae), and its parasitoid Aphidius ervi Haliday (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) was investigated using cage release experiments and measures of aphid and parasitoid fitness were taken. Barley tiller number and aphid weight were increased by fertilisers, particularly under conventional treatments. Adult parasitoid size correlated positively with that of the host, M. dirhodum, whereas percentage parasitism was not affected by fertiliser treatment or host size. The results suggest that the increased parasitoid impact observed in some low‐intensity or organic systems is not a direct result of fertiliser treatment. Our results indicate that fertiliser treatments that improve cereal‐aphid fitness will improve parasitoid fitness as measured by parasitoid size but may not influence percentage parasitism.

show abstract

“…They found that the plants with simple leave type and large leaflet were susceptible, and the resistant plants had multi-pinnate leave type and small size. El Bouhssini et al [10], found that the number of eggs laid in the susceptible chickpea line ILC3397 was higher than the resistant lines (ILC5901) that had multi-pinnate leave type. Singh and Weigand [40] released three leaf genotypes that are resistant to leaf minor with multi-pinnate and small leaflets (ILC 5901, ILC 7738, and ILC 3800).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Genetic Linkage Groups and Markers for Leaf Miner Resistance in Chickpea through QTL Analysis and Field Validation

Ali,

El Bouhssini,

Istanbuli

et al. 2023

Highlights in BioScience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chickpea is a commonly grown crop, but it is vulnerable to biotic and abiotic stresses. Leaf miner (Liriomyza cicerina) is a pest that can cause severe yield losses of up to 40% if not properly controlled. This study was conducted at ICARDA (Aleppo, Syria) during the 20112012 growing seasons. Two recombinant inbred lines, ILC 5901 (LM resistant) and ILC 3397 (LM susceptible), were crossed to yield 350 F2 plants, which were then screened for pathogen tolerance. The resistance of the plants was screened using a scale of one to nine, with 1 indicating complete resistance and 9 indicating complete susceptibility. A set of 600 simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers were validated on both parents, and 51 of these markers showed variation and were used to construct a genetic linkage map. QTL analysis was performed to determine the linkage groups responsible for line variations. The QTL analysis found that linkage groups TA37, TA34, and H4F03 were responsible for 22% of line variations, while unmapped NCPRG48 and H1C092 revealed 55.3% and 26.8% of the LIS variance, respectively, and displayed a warped dominance toward the susceptible parent. The H1C092 marker, which is significantly associated with LM, is located on Chr3 near a gene encoding the glutathione S-transferase gene family enzyme, which protects cellular macromolecules from attack by reactive electrophiles. The highly associated markers were field tested for three years to confirm their connection with LM resistance in 200 chickpea genotypes. The study showed marker-associated selection, which could accelerate the conventional breeding of LM-resistant chickpea germplasm. The markers linked to LM resistance and the identification of the protective enzyme gene offer promising avenues for further research. This study represents a significant step forward in understanding the genetics of LM resistance in chickpea and provides valuable information for breeding programs aimed at improving chickpea production.

show abstract

Effects of planting date, varieties and insecticides on chickpea leaf miner (Liriomyza cicerina R.) infestation and the parasitoid Opius monilicornis F.

Cited by 15 publications

References 5 publications

Improvement of leaf miner [Liriomyza cicerina Rond. (Diptera: Agromyzidae)] resistance in Cicer species

Improvement of leaf miner [Liriomyza cicerina Rond. (Diptera: Agromyzidae)] resistance in Cicer species

Tritrophic effects of organic and conventional fertilisers on a cereal‐aphid‐parasitoid system

Identifying Genetic Linkage Groups and Markers for Leaf Miner Resistance in Chickpea through QTL Analysis and Field Validation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About