Host Preference of Cotton Fleahopper, Pseudatomoscelis seriatus (Reuter) is not Labile to Geographic Origin and Prior Experience

Abstract

Several phytophagous insects exhibit distinct preference for their host plants. In widely distributed generalist insects, host preference can be influenced by geographic variation in host plant distribution and abundance as well as by prior experience. We have studied host preference of the cotton fleahopper, Pseudatomoscelis seriatus (Reuter), a pest of cotton in Texas and other neighboring states, by measuring olfactory orientation to horsemint (Monarda punctata L.) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Horsemint is one of the primary, native, wild hosts of cotton fleahopper during late-spring and early summer in Texas, and it is commonly believed to be the main source of this pest in cotton. Although the abundance of horsemint, and therefore the fleahopper exposure to it, varies geographically, cotton fleahopper's preference for this native host-plant is maintained across two ecoregions in Texas, TX High Plains (Lubbock area) and Brazos Valley (College Station area). Similarly, preference for horsemint was retained regardless of prior experience with cotton throughout all the life stages of the insect. This fixed preference of cotton fleahopper to horsemint could be because of their ancestral insect-plant interaction, better fitness of cotton fleahopper on horsemint, and relatively low abundance of horsemint compared with cotton. Information gained from this study could be used to implement cultural control practices such as trap cropping, to develop attractants to monitor this pest, or both.

Genome‐wide markers reveal temporal instability of local population genetic structure in the cotton fleahopper, Pseudatomoscelis seriatus (Hemiptera: Miridae)

“…In our study region, the Brazos Valley of Texas, horsemint, Monarda punctata L. (Lamiales: Lamiaceae), is often utilized as the primary spring host for cotton fleahoppers originating from senescent woolly croton. Horsemint is preferred by P. seriatus individuals over cotton, including even those who are naïve to the plant . Despite this preference, variability in environmental conditions and site quality can lead to local differences in spring host use patterns, and in some cases spring hosts may be bypassed entirely.…”

“…Horsemint is preferred by P. seriatus individuals over cotton, including even those who are naïve to the plant. 20,21 Despite this preference, variability in environmental conditions and site quality can lead to local differences in spring host use patterns, and in some cases spring hosts may be bypassed entirely. Even in years where spring hosts are in abundance and of sufficient quality, proximity of cotton to unmanaged lands where those spring hosts occur may actually lead to colonization of cotton by individuals dispersing from those edge habitats.…”

Preliminary Approach in Detecting Cotton Fleahopper Induced Damage Via Unmanned Aerial Systems and Normalized Difference Vegetation Indices

“…Overall, the experiment of varying cotton fleahopper per plant thresholds on cotton fleahopper was successful in manipulating cotton fleahopper density that led to yield differences in 2015, while 2016 cotton fleahopper data were more variable and did not lead to yield differences. Cotton plant vigor, growing conditions, and cotton development stage may have contributed to year-to-year cotton fleahopper variation (Barman et al, 2012). The relatively high cotton fleahopper day accumulation in the unsprayed control in 2015 compared to 2016 aided the ability to detect differences between the cotton fleahopper per plant thresholds and the unsprayed control in 2015 and may have aided detected difference in subsequent plant response (yield) and NDVI measurements.…”

Predicting the occurrence of host‐associated differentiation in parasitic arthropods: a quantitative literature review

“…As host-parasite interactions select for host-specific adaptations in parasites (see 'Habitat fidelity' above and 'Selection against migrants' below), any introduction of a novel host-parasite interaction potentially promotes the development of HAD (Kawata, 2002). Furthermore, the absence of competition in vacant niches or the overabundance of a niche (e.g., monocultures) may accelerate the accumulation of these adaptations and potentially offset the fitness costs associated with occurring on a maladaptive host (Barman et al, 2012). Geological time also influences HAD occurrence.…”