Influence of Pea Aphids1 and Spotted Alfalfa Aphids1 on the Stand, Yield of Dry Matter, and Chemical Composition of Resistant and Susceptible Varieties of Alfalfa2

Kindler, S. D.; Kehr, W. R.; Ogden, R. L.

doi:10.1093/jee/64.3.653

Cited by 18 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The SAA, considered one of the most injurious aphid species infesting alfalfa, causes leaf chlorosis and abscission, with severe stunting and possible plant death (Manglitz and Ratcliffe, 1988). Kindler et al (1971) found that SAA-induced injury over 2 yr resulted in DM yield losses of 28% and stand reductions of 6%. A secondary effect of SAA feeding is the production of honeydew that serves as a substrate for black mold production and reduces leaf area available for photosynthesis.…”

Section: Assimilate Removalmentioning

confidence: 98%

Impact of Insect Feeding on Alfalfa Regrowth: A Review of Physiological Responses and Economic Consequences

Hutchins¹,

Buntin²,

Pedigo

1990

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Insect-induced injury to alfalfa, Medicago sativa L., has been a frequent topic of research. The central focus of many investigations has been the physiological response of alfalfa to insect feeding, measured as altered root carbohydrate levels, canopy development, and forage feeding value. Leaf-mass consuming insects generally either remove leaf tissue in aerial portions of established canopies (e.g., alfalfa weevil, Hypera postica (Gyllenhal]) or consume new foliage during early regrowth (e.g., variegated cutworm, Peridroma saucia (Hubner]). In both instances, injury results in an initial reduction in leaf-to-stem biomass (L/S) ratio. Continued defoliation, however, affects canopy photosynthesis to the point that stem growth is slowed. Assimilate-removing insects (e.g., potato leafhopper, Empoascafabae (Harris)), disproportionately reduce stem growth compared to leaf growth, resulting in a higher L/S ratio. Although specific host response varies across the range of piercing-sucking insects, herbage feeding value per plant mass is generally enhanced with the increased L/S ratio. Overall, insect-induced changes in yield and quality from leaf-mass and assimilate removal consequentially reflects a delay in maturity. From a crop management perspective, slowed phenological development may alter harvest schedules or disrupt necessary root carbohydrate regeneration. Specific knowledge of host response, combined with current economic circumstances, should serve as a basis for developing economic injury levels to manage insect pests.

show abstract

Section: Assimilate Removalmentioning

confidence: 98%

Impact of Insect Feeding on Alfalfa Regrowth: A Review of Physiological Responses and Economic Consequences

Hutchins¹,

Buntin²,

Pedigo

1990

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Deterioration of forage quality with advancing maturity was less for hardy than for nonhardy germplasms. Several studies have shown differences in quality among alfalfa cultivars in response to biotic stress in the field (Kindler et al, 1971;Willis et al, 1969) that were greater than those in our greenhouse trial Differences among germplasms for CP were significant at all phenological stages (Table 5). Indian, M. varia, and Flemish were consistently high and Chilean, Turkistan, and Peruvian were generally low in CP.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 52%

Forage quality of genetically diverse alfalfa germplasms at four phenological growth stages

1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forage quality of various alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) cultivars has been determined under different environmental conditions, and numerous trials with alfalfa have documented an inverse relationship between forage quality and maturity. Little information is available, however, regarding the comparative forage quality of the germplasm sources from which most USA cultivars were developed. We compared forage quality of these germplasm sources at four phenological stages under disease-and insect-free conditions in a greenhouse. Germplasm sources (cultivars) tested were: Indian (Sirsa # 9), African (African), Peruvian (Hairy Peruvian), Flemish (DuPuits), Turkistan (Lahontan), Chilean (Kansas Common), M. varia (Grimm), and Ladak (Ladak). Four harvests were taken and forage was separated into four phenological stages: vegetative, early bud (1-3 buds-per-stem), late bud (> 3 buds-per-stem), and bloom. The germplasm source X phenological stage interaction was significant for crude protein (CP) and in vitro digestible dry matter (IVDDM) concentrations. M. varia showed the least decline in IVDDM and CP with increasing maturity. M. varia had higher IVDDM than did African and Indian at late bud and bloom stages. Indian and Flemish had higher CP than did Turkistan and Peruvian at late bud and bloom stages. Alfalfa germplasm sources differ in forage quality when comparisions are made within similar stages of phenological development.

show abstract

“…Tolerance resistance to aphids, though understudied, is attractive, because it raises the level at which the economic injury level occurs, delays the need for insecticidal control and rarely elicits the occurrence of virulence. Tolerance resistance to many aphid species has existed for several decades in cultivars of alfalfa, barley, maize, rice, rye, sorghum and wheat …”

Section: Allelochemical and Biophysical Plant Factors Mediate Aphid Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant resistance to aphid feeding: behavioral, physiological, genetic and molecular cues regulate aphid host selection and feeding

Smith

Chuang

2014

Pest Management Science

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aphids damage major world food and fiber crops through direct feeding and transmission of plant viruses. Fortunately, the development of many aphid-resistant crop plants has provided both ecological and economic benefits to food production. Plant characters governing aphid host selection often dictate eventual plant resistance or susceptibility to aphid herbivory, and these phenotypic characters have been successfully used to map aphid resistance genes. Aphid resistance is often inherited as a dominant trait, but is also polygenic and inherited as recessive or incompletely dominant traits. Most aphid-resistant cultivars exhibit constitutively expressed defenses, but some cultivars exhibit dramatic aphid-induced responses, resulting in the overexpression of large ensembles of putative aphid resistance genes. Two aphid resistance genes have been cloned. Mi-1.2, an NBS-LRR gene from wild tomato, confers resistance to potato aphid and three Meloidogyne root-knot nematode species, and Vat, an NBS-LRR gene from melon, controls resistance to the cotton/melon aphid and to some viruses. Virulence to aphid resistance genes of plants occurs in 17 aphid species--more than half of all arthropod biotypes demonstrating virulence. The continual appearance of aphid virulence underscores the need to identify new sources of resistance of diverse sequence and function in order to delay or prevent biotype development.

show abstract

Influence of Pea Aphids1 and Spotted Alfalfa Aphids1 on the Stand, Yield of Dry Matter, and Chemical Composition of Resistant and Susceptible Varieties of Alfalfa2

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

Impact of Insect Feeding on Alfalfa Regrowth: A Review of Physiological Responses and Economic Consequences

Impact of Insect Feeding on Alfalfa Regrowth: A Review of Physiological Responses and Economic Consequences

Forage quality of genetically diverse alfalfa germplasms at four phenological growth stages

Plant resistance to aphid feeding: behavioral, physiological, genetic and molecular cues regulate aphid host selection and feeding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About