Grasses of the Tribe Hordeae as Hosts of the Hessian Fly*

Jones, Elmer T.

doi:10.1093/jee/32.4.505

Cited by 18 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the Hessian ßy is a pest of wheat, it can infest a number of other grasses, both cultivated and wild, from the tribes Triticeae and Bromeae (Jones 1936(Jones , 1939Zeiss et al 1993;Harris et al 1996). We have seen Hessian ßy infest another alternative grass species from a different tribe in our laboratory with little to no impact on ßy survival (B. J. Schemerhorn, unpublished data).…”

mentioning

confidence: 59%

Population Structure and Spatial Influence of Agricultural Variables on Hessian Fly Populations in the Southeastern United States

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Population structure dictates the evolution of each population, and thus, the species as a whole. Incorporating spatial variables with population genetic statistics allows for greater discovery beyond traditional population genetics alone and can inform management decisions. The understanding of population structure in Hessian fly, Mayetiola destructor (Say), a pest of wheat, has been limited in the past. We scored 14 microsatellite loci from 12 collections of Hessian fly in the southeastern United States. Through Bayesian clustering analysis, we found two major populations of Hessian fly covering the entire southeastern United States. We evaluated correlations between agriculturally significant spatial variables and population genetic differentiation to test if genetic structure has an ecological component in a wheat agro-ecosystem. Our results suggest the total amount of alternative host plants in the county may be driving some genetic differentiation. Although planting date may also be influential, geographic distance, mean annual temperature, and harvested wheat for grain do not seem to be contributing factors. The ecological or spatial component to population structure, however, may be minimal compared to factors such as genetic drift.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 59%

Population Structure and Spatial Influence of Agricultural Variables on Hessian Fly Populations in the Southeastern United States

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the Hessian ßy, wheat is the preferred host. Barley, rye, triticale, and wild grasses, including A. repens, A. smithii, E. virginicus, E. canadensis, and Aegilops sp., are suspected to be able to serve as alternative hosts when wheat is not available (Jones 1936(Jones , 1938(Jones , 1939Harris et al 2001). The alternative hosts are thought to be critical in the preservation of Hessian ßy populations in the wild when wheat plants are not available.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…), Elmus virginicus L., Elmus canadensis L., and Aegilops spp.] also can serve as alternative hosts for the Hessian ßy when wheat is not available (Jones 1938(Jones , 1939Zeiss et al 1993;Harris et al 2001Harris et al , 2003. Rice, which is more distantly related to wheat, has not been evaluated for its suitability as a Hessian ßy host.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hessian Fly (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) Interactions With Barley, Rice, and Wheat Seedlings

Chen¹,

Liu²,

Wang³

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A choice test revealed that Hessian fly, Mayetiola destructor (Say) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), adults deposited approximately 3 times more eggs on wheat (Triticum spp.), seedlings than on barley (Hordeum spp.) or rice, Oryza sativa L., seedlings. On a barley seedling, 49.4% of eggs were deposited on either the abaxial leaf surface or the coleoptile and first leaf sheath (C&FLS), where newly hatched larvae die due to their inability to migrate into the interspace between leaf sheaths. In comparison, only 14% of eggs were deposited on the abaxial leaf surface or C&FLS on a wheat seedling. The average death rate of Hessian fly larvae in seedlings of an apparently susceptible barley line was 60%, compared with only 10% in seedlings of a susceptible wheat cultivar. The development of Hessian fly larvae was also much slower in barley seedlings than in wheat seedlings. It took 12 d for Hessian fly larvae to finish the first and second instars in susceptible barley seedlings, compared with 10 d in susceptible wheat seedlings under the same conditions. These results indicate that barley is not a good host for the Hessian fly. Our results also confirmed that rice is a nonhost for the Hessian fly. The resistance mechanism in rice was different from that in R gene resistant wheat. Hessian fly larvae grew a little and died more slowly in rice seedlings, whereas Hessian fly larvae died quickly without growth in resistant wheat.

show abstract

“…Although Lolium spp. were reported as hosts by Jones (1939), it may have actually been an observation for Agropyron spp. (Zeiss et al 1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

Approved Quarantine Treatment for Hessian Fly (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) in Large-Size Hay Bales and Hessian Fly and Cereal Leaf Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Control by Bale Compression

Yokoyama

2011

jnl. econ. entom.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A quarantine treatment using bale compression (32 kg/cm2 pressure) and phosphine fumigation (61 g/28.3 m3 aluminum phosphide for 7 d at 20 degrees C) was approved to control Hessian fly, Mayetiola destructor (Say), in large-size, polypropylene fabric-wrapped bales exported from the western states to Japan. No Hessian fly puparia (45,366) survived to the adult stage in infested wheat, Triticum aestivum L., seedlings exposed to the treatment in a large-scale commercial test. Daily temperatures (mean +/- SEM) inside and among bales in three test freight containers were 17.8 +/- 0.2 front top, 17.0 +/- 0.2 front bottom, 17.3 +/- 0.2 middle bale, 15.7 +/- 0.3 middle air, 18.5 +/- 0.1 back top, and 18.1 +/- 0.1 degrees C back bottom, allowing the fumigation temperature to be established at > or = 20 degrees C. Mean fumigant concentrations ranged from 208 to 340 ppm during the first 3 d and ranged from 328 to 461 ppm after 7 d of fumigation. Copper plate corrosion values inside the doors, and in the middle of the large-size bales in all locations indicated moderate exposure to hydrogen phosphide (PH3). PH3 residues were below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tolerance of 0.1 ppm in animal feeds. The research was approved by Japan and U.S. regulatory agencies, and regulations were implemented on 20 May 2005. Compression in large-size bale compressors resulted in 3-3.6 and 0% survival of Hessian fly puparia and cereal leaf beetle, Oulema melanopus (L.), respectively. Bale compression can be used as a single treatment for cereal leaf beetle and as a component in a systems approach for quarantine control of Hessian fly.

show abstract

Grasses of the Tribe Hordeae as Hosts of the Hessian Fly*

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

Population Structure and Spatial Influence of Agricultural Variables on Hessian Fly Populations in the Southeastern United States

Population Structure and Spatial Influence of Agricultural Variables on Hessian Fly Populations in the Southeastern United States

Hessian Fly (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) Interactions With Barley, Rice, and Wheat Seedlings

Approved Quarantine Treatment for Hessian Fly (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) in Large-Size Hay Bales and Hessian Fly and Cereal Leaf Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Control by Bale Compression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About