Patterns of Relationship Between Certain Leafhoppers and Plants. I. Responses to Plants

Abstract

Differences in the establishment of the leafhoppers Empoasca devastans and E. kerri motti on different plants are determined by an interaction of the following chief types of their responses in six main stages: (1) Orientation, (2) Feeding, (3) Metabolic utilization of the ingested food determining its nutritive value, (4) Growth, (5) Survival and egg‐production, (6) Oviposition. Both the leafhoppers showed equally high attraction and proboscis response to all the six test plants, namely, Gossypium hirsutum, G. herbaceum, G. arboreum, Solanum melongena, S. tuberosum, and Ricinus communis. The quantity and nutritive value of the food ingested by E. devastans decreased in the order: G. hirsutum, S. melongena, S. tuberosum, G. herbaceum, G. arboreum, and R. communis. The growth, particularly in respect of moulting/metamorphosis to adult, also decreased in the same order except that S. melongena was superior to G. hirsutum. But, the suitability of the plants for adult survival decreased in the order: S. tuberosum, S. melongena, G. hirsutum, G. herbaceum, G. arboreum, R. communis. The egg‐production and ovipositional response decreased in the order: S. melongena, G. hirsutum, S. tuberosum, G. herbaceum, G. arboreum, R. communis. The interaction of the above responses would render S. melongena most suitable for the establishment of E. devastans and the suitability of the remaining plants would decrease in the order: G. hirsutum, S. tuberosum, G. herbaceum, and G. arboreum, while R. communis would be completely unsuitable. The quantity and nutritive value of the food ingested by E. kerri motti from R. communis as well as its growth, survival, egg‐production and oviposition on this plant were the highest. Therefore, this plant would be most suitable for the insect's establishment. S. tuberosum and G. hirsutum were next to R. communis in respect of the quantity and nutritive value of the food ingested, growth and adult survival, but there was no egg‐production nor oviposition. Therefore, these two plants would support the growth of the larvae and survival of the adults, if present, but not reproduction. The remaining plants were completely unsuitable for both egg‐production and oviposition, and therefore would not support the insect's establishment. Résumé MODES DE RELATIONS ENTRE CERT AINES ESPÈCES D'EMPOASCA ET LEURS PLANTES‐HÔTES. ***IÈRE PARTIE — RÉPONSES AUX ESPÈCES DE PLANTES Les différences observees dans les conditions d'installation des Jassides Empoasca devastans et E. kerri motti sur différentes espèces de plantes sont déterminées par la résultante des réponses aux six principales phases des rapports de l'insecte avec la plante: (1) orientation, (2) alimentation, (3) utilisation métabolique de la nourriture absorbée, ce qui conditionne sa valeur nutritive, (4) croissance, (5) survie et fécondiTÉ, (6) conditions de ponte. Les deux espèces d'Empoasca montrent une même grande attraction et une réponse positive de la posture du proboscis, à chacune des six espèces de plantes tesTÉes, c'est‐à‐dire Gossypium hirsutum...

Behavioral and physiological responses of rice leaffolder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis to selected wild rices

“…Growth was measured by the number of larvae that became pupae and the time taken to reach the pupal stage. The insect growth index was calculated as the ratio of percentage of larvae developing into pupae to the mean growth period in days (Saxena et al, 1974). The higher the growth index, the more suitable was the plant for C. medinalis growth.…”

Characterization of Resistance to Adult Spittlebugs (Hemiptera: Cercopidae) in <I>Brachiaria</I> spp.

“…These plastic chambers permit the collection and measurement of excreta produced by insects in a given period of time. Ingestion of food on each of the genotypes was estimated one and 3 d after infestation following the methodology used by Saxena et al (1974) to calculate feeding rates of sucking insects as follows: fresh weight of ingested food ϭ weight of assimilated food ϩ fresh weight of excreta ϩ weight of water loss. The weight of the assimilated food was calculated by means of the following formula (Saxena et al 1974, Smith et al 1994: W 1 x [(C 1 -C 2 )/C 1 ] ϩ (W 2 -W 1 ) where W 1 and W 2 are the initial and Þnal weights of test insects and C 1 and C 2 are the initial and Þnal weights of check insects (insects that had no access to the foliage but given water from a cotton wool swab).…”

Leafhopper and Psyllid Pests of Potato

“…In contrast, Seriana equate, Alebroides nigriscutulatus, and Orosius albicinctus are known vectors of potato phytoplasma diseases, including potato marginal flavescence and purple top roll (Nagaich et al 1974, Saxena et al 1974, Khurana et al 1988, Slack 2001. Amrasca devastans, A. biguttula biguttula, and Empoasca devastans are important pests throughout potato-growing regions of India, where they damage the potato crops by direct feeding.…”