Impact of Tillage Practices on Hessian Fly-Susceptible and Resistant Spring Wheat Cultivars

Conte, Sandra C. Castle Del; Bosque‐Pérez, Nilsa A.; Schotzko, D. J.; Guy, Stephen O.

doi:10.1603/0022-0493-98.3.805

Cited by 19 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The site is part of a longterm tillage study established in 2000 and designed to assess the inßuence of conventional tillage and notillage on arthropods, soil organisms, soil quality, nitrogen fertilizer responses, and crop varieties (Castle del Conte et al 2005, Hatten et al 2007). Field experiments were conducted during the 2005, 2006, and 2007 growing seasons to examine densities of colonizing adult pea leaf weevil and subsequent immature (larval and pupal stage) densities in conventional tillage and no-tillage pea plots.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Tillage on Adult and Immature Pea Leaf Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Densities in Pea

Hanavan

Bosque‐Pérez

Schotzko

et al. 2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The pea leaf weevil, Sitona lineatus (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), has been a major pest of pea, Pisum sativum L., in eastern Washington and northern Idaho since its introduction to the region in the early 1970s. Eggs are deposited in the spring on the soil surface and first instars hatch and move to pea root nodules, where larvae feed before they pupate and adults emerge in mid- to late summer. No-tillage practices are known to reduce pea leaf weevil colonization in pea, but the effects of tillage on larval densities and subsequent adult emergence have not been examined. During 2005, 2006, and 2007, we compared densities of colonizing adult and immature pea leaf weevils on pea plots grown using conventional tillage and no-tillage. In 2005 and 2006, emergence of adult pea leaf weevil was monitored in the same plots. Densities of colonizing adult and immature pea leaf weevil were significantly higher in conventional tillage plots. Larvae in conventional tillage were further along in development than larvae in no-tillage plots during June and July. Densities of emerging adult pea leaf weevil were significantly greater from conventional tillage than no-tillage plots. Based on densities of colonizing and subsequent emerging adults, survival of weevils from egg through adult was greater in conventional tillage plots. Soils under no-tillage are cooler, resulting in later emergence of the pea crop and delayed root nodule development, possibly affecting the ability of first-instar pea leaf weevil to locate host plant roots. Our results indicate no-tillage fields are less suitable for pea leaf weevil colonization and survival than conventional tillage fields.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Tillage on Adult and Immature Pea Leaf Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Densities in Pea

Hanavan

Bosque‐Pérez

Schotzko

et al. 2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on field and controlled environment screening analyses, the parental varieties are moderately resistant to the Hessian fly biotypes that predominate in the PNW (Castle del Conte et al, 2005;Kidwell, personal observation) and moderately susceptible to biotype C. This may be a result of heterogeneity in the fly population, a mutant allele with reduced activity relative to that of the normal allele (often referred to as "leaky" genes), or the two varieties being heterogeneous for resistance to the Hessian fly since the populations were advanced in bulk after the F 4 generation. Based on field and controlled environment screening analyses, the parental varieties are moderately resistant to the Hessian fly biotypes that predominate in the PNW (Castle del Conte et al, 2005;Kidwell, personal observation) and moderately susceptible to biotype C. This may be a result of heterogeneity in the fly population, a mutant allele with reduced activity relative to that of the normal allele (often referred to as "leaky" genes), or the two varieties being heterogeneous for resistance to the Hessian fly since the populations were advanced in bulk after the F 4 generation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wakanz also includes 'Arthur 71' (Patterson et al, 1975) in its pedigree, which could provide a source of the H5 resistance gene in addition to H3, although the resistance in Wakanz has never been confirmed. Penawawa is susceptible to Hessian fly (Castle del Conte et al, 2005). Penawawa is susceptible to Hessian fly (Castle del Conte et al, 2005).…”

Section: Plant Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hessian Fly (Mayetiola destructor [Say]) Resistance Identified on Chromosome 1AS in the Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Cultivar ‘Louise’

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Hessian fly (Mayetiola destructor [Say]) is a major yield‐limiting pest in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) production systems. Resistant varieties provide the most effective control method. The objectives of this study were to identify the chromosomal location of and molecular markers associated with the Hessian fly resistance from the spring wheat cultivar ‘Louise’. One hundred eighty‐eight F5:6 recombinant inbred lines (RILs) from a Louise (resistant) × ‘Penawawa’ (susceptible) cross were evaluated for resistance to Hessian fly biotype C and a mixed population originating from field collections in the Pacific Northwest (PNW). Eight to 15 plants per RIL were scored for resistance at Purdue University and the University of Idaho. Data were converted to percentages of susceptible plants within each RIL. Louise and Penawawa had averaged susceptibility values of 15 and 100%, respectively. The RIL population ranged from 0 to 100% susceptible. A genetic linkage map consisting of 320 simple sequence repeat and 8530 single nucleotide polymorphism DNA markers was used for quantitative trait locus (QTL) analysis. One QTL, identified as QHf.wak‐1A, was significantly associated with Hessian fly resistance at an average LOD of 26.2 and accounted for 77% of the phenotypic variation. QHf.wak‐1A was localized to a 4.6‐cM region on chromosome 1AS, flanked by markers Xiwb70039 and Xcfd15. Marker, biotype screening, and allelism results indicate that this QTL is different from H9, H11, H5, and H3, but linked to H3 and H5. These data continue to clarify the relationship between Hessian fly genes on chromosome 1AS and would facilitate breeding efforts.

show abstract

“…The farm is located in the Palouse region in Latah County, Idaho, 3 km NE of Genesee. The long‐term CT and NT trial at Kambitsch was initiated in 2000 to assess the influence of tillage on pests, soil organisms, and crop variety performance (Castle del Conte et al., 2005). The overall experimental field site measures 78 × 157 m, with three sections (each 26 × 157 m) planted to either winter wheat, spring wheat, or spring peas in rotation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tillage affects the activity‐density, absolute density, and feeding damage of the pea leaf weevil in spring pea

Hatten

Dahlquist

Eigenbrode

et al. 2010

Entomologia Exp Applicata

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conversion from conventional‐tillage (CT) to no‐tillage (NT) agriculture can affect pests and beneficial organisms in various ways. NT has been shown to reduce the relative abundance and feeding damage of pea leaf weevil (PLW), Sitona lineatus L. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in spring pea, especially during the early‐season colonization period in the Palouse region of northwest Idaho. Pitfall traps were used to quantify tillage effects on activity‐density of PLW in field experiments conducted during 2001 and 2002. As capture rate of pitfall traps for PLW might be influenced by effects of tillage treatment, two mark‐recapture studies were employed to compare trapping rates in NT and CT spring pea during 2003. Also in 2003, direct sampling was used to estimate PLW densities during the colonization period, and to assess PLW feeding damage on pea. PLW activity‐density was significantly lower in NT relative to CT during the early colonization period (May) of 2001 and 2002, and during the late colonization period (June) of 2002. Activity‐density was not different between treatments during the early emergence (July) or late emergence (August) periods in either year of the study. Trap capture rates did not differ between tillage systems in the mark‐recapture studies, suggesting that pitfall trapping provided unbiased estimates of PLW relative abundances. PLW absolute densities and feeding damage were significantly lower in NT than in CT. These results indicate that NT provides a pest suppression benefit in spring pea.

show abstract

Impact of Tillage Practices on Hessian Fly-Susceptible and Resistant Spring Wheat Cultivars

Cited by 19 publications

References 20 publications

Influence of Tillage on Adult and Immature Pea Leaf Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Densities in Pea

Influence of Tillage on Adult and Immature Pea Leaf Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Densities in Pea

Hessian Fly (Mayetiola destructor [Say]) Resistance Identified on Chromosome 1AS in the Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Cultivar ‘Louise’

Tillage affects the activity‐density, absolute density, and feeding damage of the pea leaf weevil in spring pea

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About