Susceptibility of Five Sugar Beet Cultivars to the Black Bean Aphid, Aphis fabae Scopoli (Hemiptera: Aphididae)

Abstract

The black bean aphid, Aphis fabae Scopoli (Hemiptera: Aphididae), is one of the important pests of sugar beet. The relative impact of resistance, including antibiosis and antixenosis of five sugar beet cultivars (Doroti, Perimer, Pershia, Rozier and 006) on A. fabae was studied under laboratory conditions using clip cages. The antibiosis test was based on life table parameters. Significant differences on developmental time, mean number of nymphs/aphid/day, fecundity, and adult longevity of A. fabae were found across tested sugar beet cultivars. In addition, there were significant differences among the sugar beet cultivars for population growth parameters such as the intrinsic rate of natural increase (r m ), net reproductive rate (R 0), finite rate of increase (λ), doubling time (DT), and mean generation time (T) of A. fabae. The highest and lowest (r m ) values were observed on Pershia (0.449 nymphs/female/day) and Perimer (0.358 nymphs/female/day), respectively. No significant differences were found for the preference of the black bean aphid, and antixenosis had no effect on resistance against this aphid. As a result, our findings showed that the Pershia cultivar was a relatively susceptible host plant. Two cultivars (Perimer and Rozier) were relatively resistant to A. fabae, which could prove useful in the development of IPM programs for this aphid in sugar beet fields.

Investigation of the induced antibiosis resistance by zinc element in different cultivars of sugar beet to long snout weevil, Lixus incanescens (Col: Curculionidae)

“…In 2014 Fathi and Abedi showed that Period length of immature stages were different among sugar beet cultivars [FATHI and ABEDI, 2014] . In the study published by Golizadeh and colleagues on five sugar beet cultivars (Doroti, Perimer, Pershia, Rozier and 006) found relative high levels of susceptibility in Pershia cultivar to Aphis fabae; however, the cultivars Rozier and Perimer were relatively less susceptible [GOLIZADEH et al, 2016, PETRACHE, et al, 2014, BUTNARIU, et al, 2016 . On the basis our findings, under application and non-application of zinc fertilizer, the different cultivars showed the different antibiosis resistance.…”

Antixenosis Resistance in Sugar Beet Varieties to Long Snout Weevil Lixus incanescens Boh. (Col.: Curculionidae)

“…While, Golizadeh and coworkers reported that antixenosis had no effect in resistance against Aphis fabae in 5 sugar beet cultivars (Doroti, Perimer, Pershia, Rozier and 006) [GOLIZADEH et al, 2016] . These results agree with earlier reports published by Fathi and Abedi, in which they evaluated 6 cultivars namely Ardabili (polygerm), Aras, Persia, Flores, Rosire and Laetitia (monogerm) under field condition and reported that the lowest and the highest densities of weevil were observed on Persia and Ardabili cultivars, respectively [FATHI and ABEDI, 2014, GEORGIEVA, et al, 2018 .…”

“…Knowledge of the extent of susceptibility or resistance of cultivars as well as biology of a pest on a crop is a fundamental component of an integrated pest management program for any crop and can provide information on the detection and monitoring of pest infestations, cultivar selection and crop breeding [GOLIZADEH et al, 2016, ROTARU, et al, 2011, STEFAN, et al, 2013 . Based on our knowledge, damage rate in early-planted sugar beet is less than late-planted ones, thus, the percentage of damage is related to date of planting.…”

Effect of plant protection on assemblages of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in sugar beet crops in four-year rotation

“…They are invaded by nematodes such as Heterodera schachtii, some beetles, e.g. Atomaria linearis, Chaetocnema concinna and larvae of the Elatheridae and Mellolontidae families, dipterans (Pegomya hyoscyami) and aphids (Aphis fabae) (Cooke 1991, Golizadeh et al 2016, Pretorius et al 2017, Sabbour & Solieman 2019, Wenninger et al 2019. Ground beetles can help reduce pest numbers, especially in fields where chemical protection is not applied.…”