DOCSLIB.ORG

Behavioural Aspects of the Neonicotinoid Resistance of Myzus Persicae

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Behavioural Aspects of the Neonicotinoid Resistance of Myzus Persicae Behavioural Aspects of the Neonicotinoid Resistance of Myzus persicae Lucy Fray Imperial College London Ecology and Evolution Department PhD 1 Copyright Declaration The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives licence. Researchers are free to copy, distribute or transmit the thesis on the condition that they attribute it, that they do not use it for commercial purposes and that they do not alter, transform or build upon it. For any reuse or redistribution, researchers must make clear to others the licence terms of this work. Declaration of originality All of the work contained in this PhD thesis is my own, as described in my own words. All references to the works of others have been appropriately distinguished from my own work and referenced. 2 Acknowledgements During the course of this PhD I have worked in three groups under four supervisors, and so I have a lot of people to thank. First, I wish to thank my supervisors, Dr Glen Powell, Dr Rob Lind, Dr Simon Leather and Dr Dennis Wright, all of whom gave me invaluable support in what turned out to be a fairly tumultuous PhD... There is no way I could have finished this without them. Secondly, I wish to thank the BBSRC and Syngenta Crop Protection for jointly funding me to work at Imperial College London. The Royal Entomological Society and The Society for Experimental Biologists also provided me with grants to attend several conferences and present my work, for which I am very grateful. Next I would like to thank my PhD advisors, Dr Colin Turnbull and Dr Alex Grabov, who gave me much useful help and advice. I wish to thank all of the people at Jealott’s Hill who have helped me to complete this challenge. I can’t name you all, but I would like to give special thanks to Miriam Daniels, Dave Bartlett and the Biokinetics team. Jenny Pennack gave a lot of her time and was invaluable in helping me with the work in chapter five. I’d like to thank Penny Turner and her team for all of the help in maintaining the aphid cultures, and also Rosie Woodruff and her team for sowing an awful lot of Chinese cabbage. Chris Beckingham needs a special mention for all of his help with the FRC culture and generally keeping me sane. Also Emily Marchant, Steph Osbourne, Alison Fraser, Emily Hawkes, Steve Johnson, James Allanson and everyone else who kept me going over lunchtime cups of tea and listened to all of my complaining in good humour. Oh, and the climbers as well. Next I must thank all of the people at Imperial College who were with me when this study began, especially my group members Simon Hodge, Martin Selby, Sadia Kanvil and Sophie Stewart. Thank you all for showing me where to begin, and keeping me going. There are also many other people in the Plant Science department who gave me invaluable help and advice, and again I can’t name them all but Joe McKenna, David Charles, Rosa Lopez-Cobollo, Leanne Williams, Lars Kjaer and Gianna Anton all deserve a special mention. Also Fiona May and Ian Morris, both of whom always had a cheery word to give. And also all of the attendees of the Friday beer sessions –you know who you are. 3 Thanks go to Anthony Fitzgerald and Christine Short, who patiently went through the ordering system multiple times with me, and Diana Anderson who sorted out all of the admin associated with my move to Silwood Park. I think I should also thank my housemate Helen Cockerton, and Sarah and Simon of The Barge. I want to thank my Mum and Dad, who were always ready to help and listen despite not being entirely sure what I was doing, and of course my dogs. The dogs were particularly generous in making me go outside at least once a day during the writing up stage. Finally, I want to thank my partner, James, who went through every single step of this journey alongside me, and always had time to give despite making the same journey for himself. James, I love you for a reason. Oh, and I also need to thank the aphids. 4 “Aphids, known as greenfly, are very friendly bugs, They live in great big colonies and give each other hugs, They all get on most famously until one needs more space, And then like other sisters, kick each other in the face. Aphids like to feed on plants, they drink up all the sap, Hanging underneath the leaves into the phloem they tap, Their mouth is like a needle, the cuticle it pierces, It travels to the vessels via intercellular spaces. As they try to find the phloem, the other cells they puncture, Sometimes they transmit viruses but sap feeding's their juncture. When they finally reach the phloem they first will salivate, This unblocks all the forisomes and seals the poor plant's fate. Aphids will feed for hours on the phloem and just think, And when they tire of thinking from the xylem they will drink. As a pest of plants they do one other thing of point, They fire out lots of honeydew and fungus up the joint. They reproduce asexually, they don't go in for dates, 80 daughters born from each no wonder they need space! The babies are born naturally, for aphids give birth live, And inside the newborn young there's more daughters inside! When it gets to winter, the aphids they grow wings, They fly off to their winter home, where they now mate and things. They like to overwinter as tiny small black eggs, And when it's spring they rise again, as horrible plant-based cleggs!” -Lucy Fray 5 Abstract The peach potato aphid Myzus persicae (Sulzer) is an agricultural pest of high economic importance distributed across much of the globe. The main method of control of this pest is the application of neonicotinoid insecticides such as imidacloprid and thiamethoxam (TMX). Until recently no significant resistance to neonicotinoids was known in M. persicae. In 2009 however, a clone exhibiting severe resistance to neonicotinoids was collected from peach orchards in France. This resistant clone was designated ‘FRC’. Published literature has shown the high levels of neonicotinoid resistance exhibited by the FRC clone to be due to a combination of adaptations including enhanced overexpression of the detoxifying cytochrome P450 CYP6CY3, a target site mutation in the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor and reduced cuticular penetration. No studies however have investigated the possibility of a behavioural neonicotinoid resistance mechanism in M. persicae. This study describes an investigation into the presence or absence of a behavioural component to the neonicotinoid resistance of the FRC clone. Two different aspects of the behaviour of the FRC clone, feeding and dispersal, were compared to that of a clone of low neonicotinoid resistance (5191A) and a clone of complete neonicotinoid susceptibility (US1L). A significant difference was found in the dispersal behaviour of the FRC clone which could potentially contribute to its high levels of neonicotinoid resistance. Further investigation was then undertaken to determine whether this altered behaviour influenced the efficiency of the FRC clone as a vector of the persistently transmitted Turnip Yellows virus. No difference in vector ability was detected between the US1L and FRC clones. This study concludes that there is significant evidence of a potential behavioural aspect to the neonicotinoid resistance of the M. persicae FRC clone. 6 Table of Contents Copyright Declaration and Declaration of originality.……………………..……….…………2 Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………….….………..3 Abstract……………………………………………………………………….….……………6 Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………………12 1.1 Lifecycle and formation of clones..………………………………………....…....12 1.2 Control and resistance of Myzus persicae…………………………….………….13 1.3 Neonicotinoids…………………………………………………………………...14 1.4 Neonicotinoid resistance…………………………………………………………15 1.5 Molecular understanding of neonicotinoid resistance……………………...……16 1.6 Neonicotinoid metabolism and resistance.……………………………………….21 1.7 Behavioural effects of insecticides…………………………………………...….23 1.8 Hemipteran feeding physiology………………………………………………….24 1.9 Hemipteran feeding terminology……………………………………………...…26 1.10 Hemipteran feeding and plant virus transmission………………………………28 1.11 Aims and objectives…………………………………………………………….33 Chapter 2: Discerning appropriate sublethal doses.………………………………………….34 2.1 Introduction..………………………………………………………….............….34 2.2 Methods.……………………………………………………………………....….36 2.2.1 Insects and plant material………………………………………………36 2.2.2 Plant drench dose-response…………………………………………….37 2.2.3 Preparation of artificial diet……………………………………………37 2.2.4 Formation of diet rings…………………………………………………38 7 2.2.5 Artificial diet dose-response set-up…………………………………….39 2.2.6 Wide range artificial diet dose-response.……………………………….40 2.2.7 Narrow range artificial diet dose-response.…………………………….40 2.2.8 Statistical analysis.……………………………………………………...40 2.3 Results.....…………………………………………………………………………41 2.4 Discussion.………………………………………………………………………..46 Chapter 3: Dispersal behaviour of neonicotinoid resistant and susceptible Myzus persicae…51 3.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………51 3.2 Methods…………………………………………………………………………..53 3.2.1 Insect and Chinese cabbage cultures…………………………………...53 3.2.2 Experimental set-up…………………………………………………….53 3.2.3 Statistical analysis.……………………………………………………...55 3.3 Results…………………………………………………………………………....56 3.3.1 Rate of movement……………………………………………………...56 3.3.2 Aphid location: leaf vs. disc……………………………………………63 3.3.3 Aphid location: leaf tissue vs. agar.…………………………………….72 3.3.4 Aphid mortality and reproduction……………………………………...72 3.4 Discussion.………………………………………………………………………..78
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Botanical Pesticides – Where to Now? by Leather, S.R
    Botanical Pesticides – where to now? by Leather, S.R. and Pope, T.W. Copyright, publisher and additional information: This is the published version. The version of record is available online via Research Information Ltd. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1564/v30_apr_07 Leather, S.R. and Pope, T.W. 2019. Botanical biopesticides – where to now? Outlooks on Pest Management, 30(2), pp.75 – 77. BOTANICAL BIOPESTICIDES BOTANICAL BIOPESTICIDES – WHERE TO NOW? Simon R. Leather and Tom W. Pope ask what are the problems facing the use and take-up of plant based pesticides in the UK and EU, Crop & Environment Science, Harper Adams University, Edgmond, Newport, TF10 8NB UK. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] detail the problems facing the use and take-up of plant based pesticides in the UK and EU Keywords: botanical pesticides, essential oils, integrated pest management, aphids, Helping plants fight back. Simon Leather Tom Pope gain support from growers, usually incorporate, and certainly do not preclude the use of pesticides (Bailey et al., 2009) it would be foolish, in most cropping situations at least, to Introduction advocate reliance on biological control options on their own. Like Apollo 13 in the eponymously named 1995 film, crop Where approaches to prevent pest problems, such as through protection has a problem, well actually, more than one prob- the use of host-plant resistance and crop rotations, have been lem. Unlike the Apollo disaster there is however, no quick fix unsuccessful, this effectively leaves us with the biopesticides on the horizon.
    [Show full text]
  • Crops, Insect Pests and Natural Enemies: Effects of Organic and Conventional Fertilisers
    Crops, Insect Pests and Natural Enemies: Effects of Organic and Conventional Fertilisers Michael P. D. Garratt, BSc. MSc. DIC. Division of Biology, Department of Life Sciences Imperial College London A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Imperial College London Declaration The work in this thesis is entirely my own except for the parts listed below: Chapter 4 The photo-spectrometer analysis of leaf material was carried out by Dr T. Doring of Imperial College, London Chapter 5 Four of the clip cage experiments were carried out by students of Imperial College, one of whom was working on an undergraduate project. The experimental design and data analysis are my own. Signed Michael Garratt Confirmed Simon Leather Denis Wright Abstract Agricultural intensification can have negative impacts on the environment and there is increasing interest in the use of low intensity or organic agricultural methods to improve sustainability. Fertiliser is an important component of all agricultural systems and can affect the performance of crop pests and their natural enemies. This thesis presents the results from a quantitative review of the literature on both farming system and organic and conventional fertiliser effects on pests and natural enemies. Results from a series of laboratory and field experiments investigating the effects organic and conventional fertiliser on cereal aphids and their natural enemies are reported. The review demonstrates that crop pests and their natural enemies benefit from organic or low intensity methods and this is evident for natural enemies in farm scale experiments. The effect of organic and conventional fertilisers on arthropod pests is variable although the influence of manures is consistently negative while the effect of plant composts is positive.
    [Show full text]
  • Document Title
    Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP Society Building Prime Minister 8 All Saints Street 10 Downing Street London London N1 9RL, UK SW1A 2AA +44 (0)20 7837 8344 bond.org.uk 5th June 2021 Dear Prime Minister, As we approach this year’s G7, we, as representatives from NGOs, academia and business, ask that the UK government steps up to its role as Chair to lead negotiations with the world’s richest economies to tackle some of the biggest global challenges we all face. This must include a sustainable economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a significant increase in climate finance and support for the most climate vulnerable countries, action on vaccine equity including increased funding, and strengthened solidarity against threats to civic space, racial justice, gender equality, and human rights defenders. We look forward to working with the G7 and UK government to deliver ambitious outcomes for people and planet at a time of unprecedented human need. Making progress on these critical issues at the G7 will require all of the UK’s diplomatic experience. Inevitably the UK’s decision to cut its aid commitment during a pandemic casts a shadow over its ability to deliver at this year's critical G7 summit. While other G7 countries have stepped up their aid budget, the UK is the only one to have rowed back on its commitments. A G7 that shows the UK’s support for other countries will be critical to a successful COP. Without a reversal to this decision, the UK’s credibility and voice on the international stage will be undermined, and its calls to other G7 leaders to do more on critical issues such as vaccine delivery, civic space, education, gender equality, healthcare, climate change and famine prevention risk ringing hollow.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping the Uk Capacity for Agricultural Science
    Page 1 NFU Report Date: May 2014 Contact: Bethan Williams MAPPING THE UK CAPACITY FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE For the agricultural sector within Great Britain to become more productive and resilient, the industry needs to be innovative and responsive to future challenges. Agricultural science plays a key role in en- abling farm businesses to respond to the challenges; thus creating industry growth and resilience. This report aims to highlight the key research providers, including universities and research organisations that are delivering research that will help commercial farmers within Great Britain achieve sustainable intensification objectives. The voice of British farming Although every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, neither the NFU nor the au- thor can accept liability for errors and or omissions. © NFU Science and Regulatory Affairs May 2014. Page 2 NFU Report Table of Contents SCOPE OF THE REPORT ................................................................................................................ 4 KEY FUNDERS ................................................................................................................................. 4 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 4 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 4 ACKNOWLEDGING COMMERCIAL RESEARCH ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Project Title: Integrated Pest Management Scholarships (Three)
    Project title: Integrated Pest Management Scholarships (three) Project number: CP 102 Project leader: Professor Simon Leather Harper Adams University Report: 2013/14 Scholarships Previous report: N/A Key staff: Professor Simon Leather Dr Matthew Back D Roy Bateman Dr Simon Cooper Louisa Dines Dr Robert Graham Dr Ivan Grove Dr Martin Hare Dr Tom Pope Dr John Reade Location of project: Harper Adams University Industry Representative: n/a Date project commenced: October 2013 Date project to be completed September 2016 (or expected completion date): Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board 2021. All rights reserved DISCLAIMER AHDB, operating through its HDC division seeks to ensure that the information contained within this document is accurate at the time of printing. No warranty is given in respect thereof and, to the maximum extent permitted by law the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board accepts no liability for loss, damage or injury howsoever caused (including that caused by negligence) or suffered directly or indirectly in relation to information and opinions contained in or omitted from this document. Copyright, Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board 2021. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form (including by photocopy or storage in any medium by electronic means) or any copy or adaptation stored, published or distributed (by physical, electronic or other means) without the prior permission in writing of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, other than by reproduction in an unmodified form for the sole purpose of use as an information resource when the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board or HDC is clearly acknowledged as the source, or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Full Title: Do Natural Enemies Really Make a Difference? Field Scale Impacts of Parasitoid Wasps and Hoverfly Larvae on Cerea
    Full Title: Do natural enemies really make a difference? Field scale impacts of parasitoid wasps and hoverfly larvae on cereal aphid populations. Running title: Do natural enemies really make a difference Correspondence author: Mark Ramsden Address: ADAS UK Ltd, Pendeford House, Pendeford Business Park, Wolverhampton, UK Contact number: 01902 271290 Contact email: [email protected] Additional authors: Rosa Menendez; Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK Simon Leather; Crop and environmental Sciences, Harper Adams University, Shropshire, UK Felix Wäckers; Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK Key words: Cereal aphids, conservation biological control, pest management, natural enemies 1 Abstract 1. Naturally occurring predators and parasitoids are known to reduce the abundance of pest invertebrates in arable crops, yet current treatment thresholds do not account for this contribution to pest management. 2. Here, we provide evidence for the presence of natural enemies correlating with a subsequent reduction in pest population growth. 3. The abundance of cereal aphid pests and two key aphidophagous natural enemies, parasitoid wasps (Aphidiinae) and hoverfly larvae (Syrphinae) were assessed at field boundaries and interiors in southeast England. 4. The highest rate of aphid population growth was associated with locations where no natural enemies were found. The presence of either Aphidiinae wasps or predatory Syrphinae larvae was associated with a reduction in the rate of aphid population growth irrespective of location within the field, and overall aphid population growth was negatively correlated with increasing natural enemy abundance. 5. This work indicates that natural enemies contribute significantly to pest control, and provides further evidence in support of using management strategies to promote their occurrence in agro-ecosystems.
    [Show full text]