Antibiose e não preferência para oviposição de Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) biótipo B (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) em genótipos de feijoeiro comum

Abstract

O feijoeiro comum, Phaseolus vulgaris L., constitui importante fonte de proteína e renda para muitos países, entre eles, o Brasil. Diferentes fatores contribuem para a redução da produção, como os insetos pragas, destacando-se Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) biótipo B. O presente trabalho teve por objetivo identificar genótipos de feijoeiro comum resistentes à B. tabaci biótipo B e os tipos de resistência envolvidos. Para isso, foram realizados dois experimentos desenvolvidos em laboratório e em casa-de-vegetação, avaliando-se 11 genótipos de feijoeiro comum. Para o teste com chance de escolha, o delineamento utilizado foi o de blocos casualizados, e para os testes sem chance de escolha e antibiose, a escolha foi pelo inteiramente casualizado, totalizando seis repetições para cada teste. As variáveis avaliadas foram: período de incubação dos ovos; período ninfal; período de ovo a adulto; viabilidade de ovo a adulto e longevidade de adultos. O genótipo IAC-Harmonia prolongou os períodos ninfal e de ovo a adulto de B. tabaci biótipo B. Os genótipos testados foram igualmente ovipositados pela mosca-branca, em testes com e sem chance de escolha.

Silverleaf whitefly-resistant common beans: an investigation of antibiosis and/or antixenosis

“…In the present study, the incubation period of the whitefly eggs in some of the evaluated genotypes was observed; in similar studies, the incubation period of the eggs of B. tabaci biotype B in bean genotypes ranged from 8.00 to 11.00 days (Torres et al 2012;Peixoto and Boiça Júnior 2014). In the present study, the Tybatã and Pérola genotypes had the shortest incubation periods (8.40 and 8.66 days, respectively), consistent with the study by Peixoto and Boiça Júnior (2014), who observed that the incubation periods for these two genotypes ranged from 8.03 to 8.59 days. The change in the incubation period may be associated with biochemical causes related to common bean genotypes, or even to environmental factors (Smith 2005).…”

“…In general, insects attempting to colonize plants with antibiosis resistance, that is, plants with the capacity to affect their biology, present reductions in size and weight, diverse deformities, and prolongations in the lifecycle phases and, consequently, high mortality rates (Painter 1951). In the present study, the incubation period of the whitefly eggs in some of the evaluated genotypes was observed; in similar studies, the incubation period of the eggs of B. tabaci biotype B in bean genotypes ranged from 8.00 to 11.00 days (Torres et al 2012;Peixoto and Boiça Júnior 2014). In the present study, the Tybatã and Pérola genotypes had the shortest incubation periods (8.40 and 8.66 days, respectively), consistent with the study by Peixoto and Boiça Júnior (2014), who observed that the incubation periods for these two genotypes ranged from 8.03 to 8.59 days.…”

Resistance Sources and Antixenotic Factors in Brazilian Bean Genotypes Against Bemisia tabaci

“…In addition, plant leaf color may be an important factor in the attractiveness of the whitefly (Prado et al 2015, Hasanuzzaman et al 2016, Domingos et al 2018, although these are characteristics that have not yet been studied. Some genotypes of P. vulgaris have already been evaluated for resistance to B. tabaci MEAM1, and some have been characterized as having antixenotic and/or antibiotic factors (Oriani et al 2005, Torres et al 2012, Peixoto & Boiça-Junior 2014, Silva et al 2014a. Literature records indicate that the studied cultivars IPR Eldorado, IAC Alvorada, IAC Una, IAPAR 81, IPR Siriri, and IAC Harmonia exhibit antixenosis (Jesus et al 2010, Silva et al 2014a; the cultivars IPR Siriri and IAC Harmonia exhibit antibiosis (Peixoto & Boiça-Junior 2014, Silva et al 2014a; and cultivars IAPAR 57, IAPAR 65, and IAPAR 72 exhibit tolerance (Lemos et al 2003).…”

“…Some genotypes of P. vulgaris have already been evaluated for resistance to B. tabaci MEAM1, and some have been characterized as having antixenotic and/or antibiotic factors (Oriani et al 2005, Torres et al 2012, Peixoto & Boiça-Junior 2014, Silva et al 2014a. Literature records indicate that the studied cultivars IPR Eldorado, IAC Alvorada, IAC Una, IAPAR 81, IPR Siriri, and IAC Harmonia exhibit antixenosis (Jesus et al 2010, Silva et al 2014a; the cultivars IPR Siriri and IAC Harmonia exhibit antibiosis (Peixoto & Boiça-Junior 2014, Silva et al 2014a; and cultivars IAPAR 57, IAPAR 65, and IAPAR 72 exhibit tolerance (Lemos et al 2003). These studies focused on the characterization of resistance using a relatively small number of genotypes and restricted to genetic variability.…”

Niveles de densidad y fluctuación poblacional de <i>Caliothrips phaseoli</i> Hood (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) en cultivares de soja en el sudeste de Córdoba

“…Los factores químicos incluyen las sustancias que actúan negativamente en el comportamiento o metabolismo del insecto (metabolitos tóxicos, inhibidores enzimáticos, inhibidores reproductivos) o por impropiedades nutricionales de las plantas (deficiencia cualitativa, cuantitativa de nutrientes), resultando la resistencia por antibiosis (Neupane y Norris, 1990;Sharma y Norris, 1991;Hoffman-Campo et al 2001). El estudio de la comparación de parámetros biológicos de las plagas sobre diferentes plantas hospederas puede ser utilizado para selección de variedades resistentes (Wheatley y Boethel 1986;Hamond et al 1998;Hoffman-Campo et al 2003;Sedaratian y Yaghoub 2009;Peixoto y Boica Junior, 2014). Dependiendo del tipo de compuesto involucrado en la resistencia por antibiosis en soja los mismos pueden ser constitutivos (Smith, 1985) o inducidos (Kogan y Fischer, 1991).…”