1931
DOI: 10.1093/jee/24.2.361a
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparison of Oviposition and Nymphal Development of Empoasca Fabae (Harris) on Different Host Plants

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
11
0
1

Year Published

1976
1976
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
11
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Pubescence traits can mediate various aspects of the plantÐ herbivore interaction, including herbivore attraction to the host plant (Southwood 1986), adult attachment and/or oviposition (Callahan 1957, Webster et al 1975, Roberts et al 1979, Robinson et al 1980, Gannon et al 1994, Haddad and Hicks 2000, Malakar and Tingey 2000, egg survival (Poos andSmith 1931, Schillinger andGallun 1968), insect growth (Lambert et al 1992, Malakar andTingey 2000), insect movement (Webster et al 1975, Eisner et al 1998, Zvereva et al 1998, insect survival (Gilbert 1971, Eisner et al 1998, Haddad and Hicks 2000, and pupal mass (Malakar and Tingey 2000). However, far from being a general defense, the effect of pubescence may be positive, negative, or nonexistent, depending on the particular herbivore species (Southwood 1986, Hare andElle 2002) and the leaf hair type (glandular or nonglandular), density, and length (Andres and Connor 2003).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Pubescence traits can mediate various aspects of the plantÐ herbivore interaction, including herbivore attraction to the host plant (Southwood 1986), adult attachment and/or oviposition (Callahan 1957, Webster et al 1975, Roberts et al 1979, Robinson et al 1980, Gannon et al 1994, Haddad and Hicks 2000, Malakar and Tingey 2000, egg survival (Poos andSmith 1931, Schillinger andGallun 1968), insect growth (Lambert et al 1992, Malakar andTingey 2000), insect movement (Webster et al 1975, Eisner et al 1998, Zvereva et al 1998, insect survival (Gilbert 1971, Eisner et al 1998, Haddad and Hicks 2000, and pupal mass (Malakar and Tingey 2000). However, far from being a general defense, the effect of pubescence may be positive, negative, or nonexistent, depending on the particular herbivore species (Southwood 1986, Hare andElle 2002) and the leaf hair type (glandular or nonglandular), density, and length (Andres and Connor 2003).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1). Numerous reports of hooked trichome capture have been made for a diverse group of insect species, including the potato leafhopper (Poos & Smith, 1931), bedbugs, Cimex lectularius L. (Richardson, 1943), the aphids Myzuspersicae (Sulzer) (McKinney, 1938), Aphis fabae Scopoli (de Fluiter & Ankersmit, 1948) and Aphis craccivora Koch (Johnson, 1953), larvae of the beetle Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say (Trouvelot & Thenard, 1931), and adults of the fruit fly, Dacus tryoni (Frogg. ) (Hely, 1945).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results of the present studies further reveal that oviposition preference of leafhopper is more strongly influenced by the thickness and length of leaf veins compared to pubescence character. It has been reported that the more hairy leaves of resistant cultivars of cotton, okra, castor, potato and egg plant are less preferred for feeding and oviposition by leafhoppers (P oos and S mith , 1931; P arnell et al., 1949; J ayaraj , 1968; B roersma et al., 1972; M offit and R eynolds , 1972; A garwal et al., 1978; S ingh and A garwal , 1988). However, we could not find any significant relationship between hairiness and leafhopper oviposition.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%