1980
DOI: 10.1093/jee/73.1.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Stylet Sheath as an Indicator of Feeding Activity by the Southern Green Stink Bug on Soybeans1

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
28
1
6

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
28
1
6
Order By: Relevance
“…These observations, suggestive of feeding activity, however, were contrary to the long-held dogma that Þrst-instar N. viridula do not feed (Jones 1918;Bowling 1979Bowling , 1980McPherson and McPherson 2000;Vivan and Panizzi 2005).…”
contrasting
confidence: 94%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…These observations, suggestive of feeding activity, however, were contrary to the long-held dogma that Þrst-instar N. viridula do not feed (Jones 1918;Bowling 1979Bowling , 1980McPherson and McPherson 2000;Vivan and Panizzi 2005).…”
contrasting
confidence: 94%
“…Bowling (1980) explicitly stated, "Firststage nymphs did not feed." However, Þrst instars were not examined by Bowling (1980).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Stink bug damage. The thumbtack by inoculating soybean seed, according to [3], will deteriorate the tissues of the seed, resulting in great reduction of vigor and viability thereof.…”
Section: Seed Vigormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ao introduzirem os estiletes na superfície das sementes ou tecidos vegetais, forma -se ao redor das peças bucais uma crosta salivar ("flange"), produto da solidificação do excesso da saliva do inseto; essas estruturas, também chamadas de "bainhas estiletares" por pesquisadores brasileiros (COSTA, 1991;NIVA;HIROSE, 1995;NUNEZ;CORRÊA-FERREIRA, 2002;FORTES et al, 2006), permitem fixar as peças bucais durante o processo alimentar e têm sido utilizadas como indicadores da atividade alimentar de percevejos pentatomídeos (MILES, 1972;BOWLING, 1980) (2006) Dieta artificial 5,3-5,6 4,9-5,1 5,9-6,3 9,4-9,9 25,7-26,9 Fortes et al (2006) Dieta artificial 6,7-7,4 5,9-12,1 6,5-15,5 10,7-20,5 28,5-57 Siqueira (2007) Viabilidade ( para fêmeas e machos respectivamente e uma fecundidade de 2 a 3 vezes maior quando comparada com aquela obtida com outros alimentos, inclusive soja.…”
Section: Lista De Figurasunclassified