Chinch Bug (Hemiptera: Blissidae) Mouthpart Morphology, Probing Frequencies, and Locations on Resistant and Susceptible Germplasm

Anderson, Wyatt G.; Heng-Moss, Tiffany; Baxendale, F. P.; Baird, Lisa; Sarath, Gautam; Higley, Leon G.

doi:10.1093/jee/99.1.212

Cited by 31 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are a number of morphological similarities in the mouthparts of this insect to those of Auchenorrhyncha species described previously (Anderson et al, 2006;Boyd, 2003;Forbes, 1969;Pollard, 1973;Garzo et al, 2012;Liang et al, 2013;Rosell et al, 1995;Zhao et al, 2010). The basic structure of the mouthparts consists of a cone-shaped labrum covered with some triangular spines, a cylindrical, three-segmented labium with abundant different types of sensilla mainly symmetrically distributed on each side of the labial groove, a needle-like stylet fascicle comprising two mandibular and two maxillary stylets, a crescentshaped mandibular stylet with several serrate ridges (Sr) on the surface of each stylet tip and one row of numerous tooth-like projections on the lateral edge of each stylet and two maxillary stylets held together forming a food canal (Fc) and a salivary canal (Sc).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…Each mandibular stylet has five teeth in Delphacidae (Dai et al, 2014) and ten teeth are present in Psyllidae (Garzo et al, 2012;Liang et al, 2013;Pollard, 1970;Ullman and McLean, 1986), whereas more than ten ridges may be found on the mandibles of Aphididae (Forbes, 1969) and nine to twenty teeth occur in different species of leafhoppers (Leopold et al, 2003;Zhao et al, 2010). The teeth are sharper in predacious hemipterans than in phytophagous hemipterans (Anderson et al, 2006;Boyd et al, 2002;Boyd, 2003;Garzo et al, 2012). In P. albinotata, except for five dorsal nodules, numerous ridges on the apical half of the stylet are restricted to the ventral part of the external convex region while the dorsal part is smooth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, because mouthpart structures may be characteristic of all members of a genus, family or order of insects, knowledge of mouthpart morphology is useful for classification and identification (Gullan and Cranston, 2005). Previous work on the ultrastructural morphology of Hemiptera mouthparts, using light and scanning electron microscopy, has mainly focused on Heteroptera (Anderson et al, 2006;Boyd, 2003;Cobben, 1978), Aphidoidea (Forbes, 1969;Pollard, 1973;Razaq et al, 2000), Psyllidae (Garzo et al, 2012;Liang et al, 2013) and Aleyrodidae (Rosell et al, 1995;Walker and Gordh, 1989) of Sternorrhyncha, and Cicadellidae (Tavella and Arzone, 1993;Leopold et al, 2003;Wiesenborn, 2004;Zhao et al, 2010;Ammar and Hall, 2012) and Fulgoroidea (Brentassi and de Remes Lenicov, 2007;Dai et al, 2014;Liang, 2005) of Auchenorrhyncha. Apart from some brief notes on the stylets of Philaenus spumarius (L.) (Pollard, 1971) and Notozulia entreriana (Berg) (Paladini et al, 2008), and the interlocking pattern of maxillae and mandibles of Aphrophora alni (Fall en) (Cobben, 1978), fine structure of the mouthparts in spittlebugs has received little attention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Morphology of the mouthparts of the spittlebug Philagra albinotata Uhler (Hemiptera: Cercopoidea: Aphrophoridae)

Wang

Pan

Zhang

et al. 2015

Arthropod Structure & Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Morphology of the mouthparts of the spittlebug Philagra albinotata Uhler (Hemiptera: Cercopoidea: Aphrophoridae)

Wang

Pan

Zhang

et al. 2015

Arthropod Structure & Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Raleigh has previously been reported as having antibiosis (Anderson et al 2006) and tolerance (Chong et al 2009) against southern chinch bugs; however, Reinert et al (2011) reported it as highly susceptible for the southern chinch bug population tested in their study. In the current study, this variety was found to display low levels of damage in the damage rating experiment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

St. Augustinegrass Germplasm Resistant to <I>Blissus insularis</I> (Hemiptera: Blissidae)

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

St. Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum (Walter) Kuntze) is an economically important turfgrass in the southeastern United States. However, this turf species is prone to southern chinch bug, Blissus insularis Barber (Heteroptera: Blissidae) outbreaks. This insect is the most destructive pest of St. Augustine grass wherever this turf grass is grown. Host plant resistance has historically been an effective management tool for southern chinch bug. Since 1973, the 'Floratam' St. Augustine grass cultivar effectively controlled southern chinch bug in the southeast. However, southern chinch bug populations from Florida and Texas have now circumvented this resistance, through mechanisms still unknown. Therefore, identifying and deploying new cultivars with resistance to the southern chinch bug is imperative to combat this pest in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner. Currently, the number of cultivars with resistance against southern chinch bug is limited, and their efficacy, climatic adaptability, and aesthetic characters are variable. Hence, the main focus of this study is the identification of alternative sources of resistance to southern chinch bugs in previously uncharacterized St. Augustine grass plant introductions (PIs) and its closely related, crossbreeding species, Pembagrass (Stenotaphrum dimidiatum (L.) Brongniart). The PIs exhibited a wide range of responses to southern chinch bug feeding, as indicated by damage ratings. Damage ratings for seven PIs grouped with our resistant reference cultivars. Moreover, nine PIs exhibited antibiosis, based on poor development of southern chinch bug neonates, when compared with our susceptible reference cultivars. Altogether our study has produced strong support to indicate these materials are good candidates for future southern chinch bug resistance breeding in St. Augustine grass.

show abstract

“…Painter (1928) noted the presence of a "styletsheath" during feeding of the common chinch bug (B. leucopterous leucopterous), a pest of sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. Anderson et al (2006) found salivary sheaths produced by Blissus occiduus Barber in buffalograss, Buchloë dactyloides (Nuttall) Engelmann. The production of salivary sheaths has often been used as a quantitative measure of homopteran feeding (Bowling 1979, Marion-Poll et al 1987, Bing et al 1991.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Role of Leaf Sheath Lignification and Anatomy in Resistance Against Southern Chinch Bug (Hemiptera: Blissidae) in St. Augustinegrass

Rangasamy¹,

Rathinasabapathi²,

McAuslane³

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Southern chinch bug, Blissus insularis Barber (Hemiptera: Blissidae), is the most serious insect pest of St. Augustinegrass Stenotaphrum secundatum (Walter) Kuntze, a common lawngrass grown in southeastern U.S. states. Host plant resistance to southern chinch bug has been identified in the polyploid St. Augustinegrass 'FX-10' and the diploid 'Captiva'. The objective of this research was to identify possible physical mechanism(s) explaining chinch bug resistance in these cultivars. We studied the distribution of chinch bug salivary sheaths in the preferred tissue for feeding (the axillary shoot) of the two resistant cultivars and two susceptible cultivars, paired for ploidy ('Floratam', polyploid, and Palmetto, diploid). We also investigated the potential role of axillary shoot lignification and anatomy in chinch bug resistance. Salivary sheaths were more abundant on the outermost leaf sheath of axillary shoots of resistant cultivars compared with susceptible cultivars. In contrast, fewer salivary sheaths reached the innermost meristematic tissue in the axillary shoots of resistant St. Augustinegrass cultivars than in the two susceptible cultivars. The polyploid cultivars FX-10 and Floratam had higher total lignin in axillary shoots compared with the diploid cultivars Captiva and Palmetto. However, total lignin content was not correlated with resistance to southern chinch bug. Light microscopic studies found no differences in epidermal layer thickness among resistant and susceptible St. Augustinegrass cultivars. However, transmission electron microscopic studies revealed that the cell walls of the sclerenchyma cells around the vascular bundle of southern chinch bug-resistant FX-10 and Captiva were significantly thicker than the cell walls in susceptible Floratam and Palmetto. Our research suggests that the thick-walled sclerenchyma cells around the vascular bundle play a role in southern chinch bug resistance in St. Augustinegrass, possibly by reducing stylet penetration to the vascular tissue.

show abstract

Chinch Bug (Hemiptera: Blissidae) Mouthpart Morphology, Probing Frequencies, and Locations on Resistant and Susceptible Germplasm

Cited by 31 publications

References 15 publications

Morphology of the mouthparts of the spittlebug Philagra albinotata Uhler (Hemiptera: Cercopoidea: Aphrophoridae)

Morphology of the mouthparts of the spittlebug Philagra albinotata Uhler (Hemiptera: Cercopoidea: Aphrophoridae)

St. Augustinegrass Germplasm Resistant to <I>Blissus insularis</I> (Hemiptera: Blissidae)

Role of Leaf Sheath Lignification and Anatomy in Resistance Against Southern Chinch Bug (Hemiptera: Blissidae) in St. Augustinegrass

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About