Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-w6wnr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-21T12:54:07.582Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in aphid probing behaviour as a function of insect age and plant resistance level

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2012

J. Pompon  and
Y. Pelletier
J. Pompon*
Affiliation:
Potato Research Center, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 850 Lincoln Rd, Fredericton, New Brunswick, E3B 4Z7 Canada: Population Ecology Group, Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, E3B 6C2Canada
Y. Pelletier
Affiliation:
Potato Research Center, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 850 Lincoln Rd, Fredericton, New Brunswick, E3B 4Z7 Canada: Population Ecology Group, Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, E3B 6C2Canada
*
*Author for correspondence Fax: +001 506-452-3316 E-mail: pomponjulien@yahoo.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aphids perform a series of behaviours to assess feeding suitability and, hence, to select a plant. Little information, however, is available on such behaviour after aphids have settled on a plant. Observation of probing behaviour over an extended period of time can improve our understanding of insect-plant interactions and is instrumental in the study of crop resistance. Here, we assessed the influence of aphid age and plant resistance level on aphid behaviour. An electrical penetration graph (EPG) technique was implemented to monitor the behaviour of potato aphid, Macrosiphum euphorbiae, alates on potato, Solanum tuberosum, and on both a susceptible and a resistant genotype of a wild Solanum species, S. chomatophilum. The behaviour was measured at daily intervals for the first seven days following adult emergence. The results indicated independent and interacting effects of aphid age and plant genotype on probing behaviour. Some behavioural discrepancies between susceptible and resistant genotypes were only observed after the first day, thus highlighting the limits of punctual one-day behavioural studies to assess plant resistance mechanisms. Our work supports the hypothesis that aphids continuously adapt their behaviour to the plant characteristics.

Keywords

probing behaviourEPGmultivariate analysisSolanum chomatophilumcrop resistance mechanismadaptation
Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 102 , Issue 5 , October 2012 , pp. 550 - 557
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alvarez, A.E., Tjallingii, W.F., Garzo, E., Vleeshouwers, V., Dicke, M. & Vosman, B. (2006) Location of resistance factors in the leaves of potato and wild tuber-bearing Solanum species to the aphid Myzus persicae. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 121, 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, A.E., Garzo, E., Verbeek, M., Vosman, B., Dicke, M. & Tjallingii, W.F. (2007) Infection of potato plants with potato leafroll virus changes attraction and feeding behaviour of Myzus persicae. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 125, 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernays, E.A. (2001) Neural limitations in phytophagous insects: implications for diet breadth and evolution of host affiliation. Annual Review of Entomology 46, 703–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caillaud, M. (1999) Behavioural correlates of genetic divergence due to host specialization in the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 91, 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caillaud, C.M., Pierre, J.S., Chaubet, B. & Di Pietro, J.P. (1995) Analysis of wheat resistance to the cereal aphid Sitobion avenae using electrical penetration graphs and flow charts combined with correspondence analysis. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 75, 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J.Q., Rahbé, Y., Delobel, B., Sauvion, N., Guillaud, J. & Febvay, G. (1997) Melon resistance to the aphid Aphis gossypii: behavioural analysis and chemical correlations with nitrogenous compounds. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 85, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, A.F.G. (1998) Aphid Ecology. London, UK, Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Girousse, C., Moulia, B., Silk, W. & Bonnemain, J.L. (2005) Aphid infestation causes different changes in carbon and nitrogen allocation in alfalfa stems as well as different inhibitions of longitudinal and radial expansion. Plant Physiology 137, 1474–1484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Givovich, A. & Niemeyer, H.M. (1995) Comparison of the effect of hydroxamic acids from wheat on five species of cereal aphids. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 74, 115–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Roux, V., Dugravot, S., Campan, E., Dubois, F., Vincent, C. & Giordanengo, P. (2008) Wild Solanum resistance to aphids: Antixenosis or antibiosis? Journal of Economic Entomology 101, 584–591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, X., Schuler, M.A. & Berenbaum, M.R. (2002) Jasmonate and salicylate induce expression of herbivore cytochrome P450 genes. Nature 419, 712–715.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacGillivray, M.E. & Anderson, G.B. (1957) Three useful insect cages. Canadian Entomologist 89, 43–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangel, M. (1993) Motivation, learning and motivated learning. pp. 158–173in Papaj, D.R. & Lewis, A.C. (Eds) Insect Learning: Ecological and Evolutionary Perspectives. New York, USA, Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, C.B., Williams, I.S. & Hardie, J. (2001) The role of nutrition, crowding and interspecific interactions in the development of winged aphids. Ecological Entomology 26, 330–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutti, N.S., Louis, J., Pappan, L.K., Pappan, K., Begum, K., Chen, M.S., Park, Y., Dittmer, N., Marshall, J., Reese, J.C. & Reeck, G.R. (2008) A protein from the salivary glands of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum, is essential in feeding on a host plant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105, 9965–9969.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nowak, H. & Komor, E. (2010) How aphids decide what is good for them: experiments to test aphid feeding behaviour on Tanacetum vulgare (L.) using different nitrogen regimes. Oecologia 163, 973–984.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pelletier, Y. & Giguere, M.A. (2009) Effect of manipulations on the host selection behavior of Sitobion avenae (Homoptera: Aphididae). Journal of Insect Behavior 22, 165–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, Y., Pompon, J., Dexter, P. & Quiring, D. (2010) Biological performance of Myzus persicae and Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Homoptera: Aphididae) on seven wild Solanum species. Annals of Applied Biology 156, 329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pompon, J., Quiring, D., Giordanengo, P. & Pelletier, Y. (2010a) Role of host plant selection in resistance of wild Solanum species to Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) and Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 137, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pompon, J., Quiring, D., Giordanengo, P. & Pelletier, Y. (2010b) Role of xylem consumption on osmoregulation in Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas). Journal of Insect Physiology 56, 610–615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pompon, J., Li, X.Q. & Pelletier, Y. (2011a) Resistance level to an aphid potato pest varies between genotypes from the same Solanum accession. Journal of Economic Entomology 104, 1075–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pompon, J., Quiring, D., Goyer, C., Giordanengo, P. & Pelletier, Y. (2011b) A phloem-sap feeder mixes phloem and xylem sap to regulate osmotic potential. Journal of Insect Physiology 57, 1317–1322CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ponder, K.L., Pritchard, J., Harrington, R. & Bale, J.S. (2000) Difficulties in location and acceptance of phloem sap combined with reduced concentration of phloem amino acids explain lowered performance of the aphid Rhopalosiphum padi on nitrogen deficient barley (Hordeum vulgare) seedlings. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 97, 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. & Hardie, J. (2000) Host-selection behaviour by genetically identical aphids with different plant preferences. Physiological Entomology 25, 54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G., Tosh, C. & Hardie, J. (2004) Parturition by colonizing aphids: no correlation with phloem ingestion. pp. 485–489in Simon, J.C., Dedryer, C.A., Rispe, C. & Hull, M. (Eds) Aphid in a New Millenium. Paris, France, INRA.Google Scholar
Powell, G., Tosh, C.R. & Hardie, J. (2006) Host plant selection by aphids: Behavioral, evolutionary, and applied perspectives. Annual Review of Entomology 51, 309–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prado, E. & Tjallingii, W.F. (1997) Effects of previous plant infestation on sieve element acceptance by two aphids. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 82, 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prado, E. & Tjallingii, W.F. (1999) Effects of experimental stress factors on probing behaviour by aphids. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 90, 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, G.P. & Keough, M.J. (2002) Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radcliffe, E.B. (1982) Insect pests of potato. Annual Review of Entomology 27, 173–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramírez, C.C. & Niemeyer, H.M. (1999) Salivation into sieve elements in relation to plant chemistry: The case of the aphid Sitobion fragariae and the wheat, Triticum aestivum. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 91, 111–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramírez, C.C. & Niemeyer, H.M. (2000) The influence of previous experience and starvation on aphid feeding behavior. Journal of Insect Behavior 13, 699–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramírez, C.C., Caballero, P.P. & Niemeyer, H.M. (1999) Effect of previous exposure to hydroxamic acids in probing behavior of aphid Sitobion fragariae on wheat seedlings. Journal of Chemical Ecology 25, 771–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, Y. (1988) Dispersion and migration. pp. 299–313in Minks, A.K. & Harrewijn, P. (Eds) Aphids: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J. (1995) Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. 3rd edn.New York, USA, Freeman.Google Scholar
Spiller, N.J., Koenders, L. & Tjallingii, W.F. (1990) Xylem ingestion by aphids: A strategy for maintaining water balance. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 55, 101–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tjallingii, W.F. (1986) Wire effects on aphids during electrical recording of the stylet penetration. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 40, 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tjallingii, W.F. (1987) Stylet penetration activities by aphids: new correlations with electrical penetration graphs. pp. 301–306in Labeyrie, V., Fabres, G. & Lachaise, D. (Eds) Proceedings of the 6th international Symposium on Insect-Plant Relationship. Pau, France, Dr W. Junk.Google Scholar
Tjallingii, W.F. (1988) Electrical recording of stylet penetration activities. pp. 95–108in Minks, A.K. & Harrewijn, P. (Eds) Aphids: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Tjallingii, W.F. (1995) Aphid-plant interactions: what goes on in the depth of the tissues? Proceedings of the Section Experimental and Applied Entomology of the Netherlands Entomological Society (NEV) 6, 189–200.Google Scholar
Tjallingii, W.F. (2006) Salivary secretions by aphids interacting with proteins of phloem wound responses. Journal of Experimental Botany 57, 739–745.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tosh, C.R., Powell, G., Holmes, N.D. & Hardie, J. (2003) Reproductive response of generalist and specialist aphid morphs with the same genotype to plant secondary compounds and amino acids. Journal of Insect Physiology 49, 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Will, T., Tjallingii, W.F., Thonnessen, A. & van-Bel, A.-J.E. (2007) Molecular sabotage of plant defence by aphid saliva. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104, 10536–10541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed