DOCSLIB.ORG

Management Strategies of Aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) As Vectors of Pepper Viruses in Western Massachusetts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Management Strategies of Aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) As Vectors of Pepper Viruses in Western Massachusetts University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-1988 Management strategies of aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) as vectors of pepper viruses in western Massachusetts. Dario Corredor University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Corredor, Dario, "Management strategies of aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) as vectors of pepper viruses in western Massachusetts." (1988). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 5636. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/5636 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES OF APHIDS (HOMOPTERA: APHIDIDAE) AS VECTORS OF PEPPER VIRUSES IN WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS A Dissertation Presented by Dario Corredor Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 1988 Entomology c Copyright by Dario Corredor 1988 All Rights Reserved MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES OF APHIDS (HOMOPTERA: APHIDIDAE) AS VECTORS OF PEPPER VIRUSES IN WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS A Dissertation Presented by Dario Corredor David N. Ferro, Chairman of Committee To Consuelo, Paula and Anamaria whose love and support helped me through all these years. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S I thank my friend and major advisor David N. Ferro for his advice, support and patience while I was a graduate student. I also want to thank Drs. Ronald J. Prokopy and George N. Agrios for their advice in designing the experiments and for reviewing the dissertation. I especially want to thank the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Agronomia, Bogota, for supporting me during my graduate studies. V ABSTRACT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES OF APHIDS (HOMOPTERA: APHIDIDAE) AS VECTORS OF PEPPER VIRUSES IN WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS MAY 1988 DARIO CORREDOR, B.S., UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE COLOMBIA M.S., WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Ph.D., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS Directed by: Professor David N. Ferro Potential aphid vectors of nonpersistent viruses of green pepper Capsicum annuum L. were monitored by the use of color traps at the University of Massachusetts Research Farm at Sunderland, MA. Yellow pan traps were used to determine the main species landing on green pepper plants. Nonpersistent viruses are mainly vectored in peppers by two colonizing species of aphids, the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae (Sulzer) and potato aphid, Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas). Foliage mimic traps (peak reflectance of 14% at 550 nm) were used to monitor the number of alate aphids landing in pepper plots. It appears that initial spread of pepper viruses could be by non-colonizing species, such as Cavariella sp. and Capitophorus eleagni (Del Guercio) as the colonizing aphid species were in low numbers at this time. Reflective mulch alone or in combination with a highly refined summer oil may reduce the spread of viruses when compared to oil alone or the control. The number of alighting aphids was lower in mulch treatments in 1982 but not in 1981. The yield of marketable fruit was highest for the mulch treatments. Yellow, ermine lime ceramic tile and green foliage mimic traps were compared. The mean number of aphids caught increased as the trapping surface increased for yellow and foliage mimic traps. Trap background significantly influenced the number of aphids caught per trap. When yellow or foliage mimic traps were placed over reflective mulch, virtually no aphids were trapped. Yellow traps placed over soil background, caught more potato aphid than when placed over a given foliage mimic background. When the foliage mimic traps were placed over soil and foliage mimic background, there was no difference in the number of green peach aphid and potato aphid caught. Higher numbers of miscellaneous aphids were trapped over soil. V i I TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . v ABSTRACT.vi LIST OF TABLES.ix LIST OF FIGURES. x Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . 1 II. YELLOW PAN TRAPS FOR MONITORING APHIDS ALIGHTING ON GREEN PEPPER IN WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ... 10 Introduction . 10 Materials and Methods . 12 Results and Discussion . 12 III. APHID VECTOR MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR THE SPREAD OF PEPPER VIRUSES IN WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS . 48 Introduction. 48 Materials and Methods . 50 Results and Discussion . 54 IV. FOLIAGE MIMIC TRAPS FOR MONITORING ALATE APHIDS LANDING IN GREEN PEPPER.72 Introduction . 72 Materials and Methods . 74 Result^, and Discussion.76 V. CONCLUSIONS.91 REFERENCES CITED . 98 vl I i LIST OF TABLES page 1. Alate aphids captured in green mimic traps in green pepper, Capsicum annuum, at the University of Massachusetts Research Farm, Sunderland, MA, 1981.55 2. Alate aphids captured in green mimic traps in green pepper, Capsicum annuum, at the University of Massachusetts Research Farm, Sunderland, MA, 1982. 56 3. Mean number of alate aphids on green pepper Capsicum annuum, at the University of Massachusetts Research Farm, Sunderland, MA, 1981.59 4. Mean Number of apterous aphids on green pepper at the Univesity of Massachusetts Research Farm, Sunderland, MA, 1981. 61 5. Mean number of unmarketable green pepper fruit due to virus symptoms and total yields of marketable fruit per hectare.69 6. Number of alate M. persicae captured on Federal safety yellow, ermine lime ceramic tile and green foliage mimic traps, 1983. 82 7. Number of alate M. euphorbiae captured on Federal safety yellow, ermine lime ceramic tile and green foliage mimic traps, 1983. 83 8. Number of alate miscellaneous aphids captured on Federal safety yellow, ermine lime ceramic tile and green foliage mimic traps.84 9. Mean number of aphids landing on different sizes of sticky wooden traps over a soil background, for 15 trapping days from 12 June to 22 August 1983. 86 10. Number of alate aphids landing on green foliage mimic traps over mulch or green soil backgrounds for 20 trapping days from 24 June to 22 August 1983. 87 11. Mean number of alate aphids landing on Federal safety yellow traps over mulch, green and soil backgrounds for 20 trapping days from 24 June to 22 August 1983.88 I X LIST OF FIGURES page 1. Total weekly number of alate aphids captured per yellow pan trap in green pepper, Sunderland, MA, 1981 and 1982. 15 2. Number of alate Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) caught per yellow pan trap in green pepper, Sunderland, MA, 1981 and 1982. 17 3. Number of alate Myzus persicae (Sulzer) caught per yellow pan trap in green pepper, Sunderland, MA, 1981 and 1982. 19 4. Number of alate Aphis spp. caught per yellow pan trap in green pepper, Sunderland, MA, 1981 and 1982. 21 5. Number of alate Hyalopterus atriplicis (L.) caught per yellow pan trap in green pepper, Sunderland, MA, 1981 and 1982. 23 6. Number of alate Capitophorus elaeagni (Del Guercio) caught per yellow pan trap in green pepper, Sunderland, MA, 1981 and 1982. 25 7. Number of alate Cavariella sp. caught per yellow pan trap in green pepper, Sunderland, MA, 1981 and 1982. 27 8. Number of alate Microsiphum pallens Hottes and Frison caught per yellow pan trap in green pepper, Sunderland, MA, 1981 and 1982. 29 9. Number of alate Uroleucon pseudambrosiae (Olive) caught per yellow pan trap in green pepper, Sunderland, MA, 1981 and 1982. 31 10. Number of alate Aphis nerii Fonscolorabe caught per yellow pan trap in green pepper, Sunderland, MA, 1981 and 1982. 33 11. Number of alate Rhopalosiphum maidis (Fitch) caught per yellow pan trap in green pepper, Sunderland, MA, 1981 and 1982. 35 12. Number of alate Aphis gossypii Glover caught per yellow pan trap in green pepper, Sunderland, MA, 1981 and 1982. 37 13. Number of alate Aphis craccivora Koch caught per yellow pan trap in green pepper, Sunderland, MA, 1981 and 1982. 39 x 14. Number of alate Drepanaphis sp. caught per yellow pan trap in green pepper, Sunderland, MA, 1981 and 1982. 41 15. Number of alate Kaltenbachiella sp. caught per yellow pan trap in green pepper, Sunderland, MA, 1981 and 1982.. 16. Percentage of green pepper plants (cultivar ”Lady Bell”) showing virus symptoms in 1982.45 17. Relative reflectance of plastic mulch (M), green pepper leaf (GPL) and green foliage mimic (GFM).53 18. Percentage green pepper plants, Capsicum annuum L., showing virus symptoms for mulch (M), mulch plus oil (M&O), oil (0) and untreated control (C) treatments at the University of Massachusetts Research Farm, Sunderland, MA, 1981.65 19. Percentage green pepper plants, Capsicum annuum L., showing virus symptoms for mulch (M), mulch plus oil (M&O) oil (0) and untreated control (C) treatments at the University of Massachusetts Research Farm, Sunderland, MA, 1982. 67 20. Relative reflectance of Federal safety yellow trap (FSY), ermine lime ceramic tile (CT), green foliage mimic trap (GFM) and green pepper leaf (GPL).78 21. Relative reflectance of cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) infected green pepper leaf, under surface of a healthy green pepper leaf (US) and ermine lime ceramic tile trap (CT).80 x I CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Yellow Pan Traps Many researchers have reported on the behavioral response of aphids to visible light spectrum (Broadbent 1948, Moericke 1951, 1955, 1969, Kennedy and Stroyan 1959, Kring 1967, 1970 and others). Kennedy et al. (1961) suggested that the primary function of color vision in flying aphids is to distinguish plants from the sky, besides any subsidiary discrimination among plants and soils. Such a primary discrimination could be achieved by a differential response to spectral wavelengths longer or shorter than 500 nm. It has been proposed that the flight behavior of migrant aphids has two different moods (Moericke 1955). A distance-flight mood occurs when the aphid takes off attracted by the shortwave light from the sky.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "Virus Transmission by Aphis' Gossypii 'Glover to Aphid-Resistant And
    J. AMER. Soc. HORT. SCI. 117(2):248-254. 1992. Virus Transmission by Aphis gossypii Glover to Aphid-resistant and Susceptible Muskmelons Albert N. Kishaba1, Steven J. Castle2, and Donald L. Coudriet3 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Boyden Entomology Laborato~, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521 James D. McCreight4 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Agricultural Research Station, 1636 East Alisal Street, Salinas, CA 93905 G. Weston Bohn5 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Irrigated Desert Research Station, 4151 Highway 86, Brawley, CA 92227 Additional index words. Cucumis melo, watermelon mosaic virus, zucchini yellow mosaic virus, melon aphid, melon aphid resistance Abstract. The spread of watermelon mosaic virus by the melon aphid (Aphis gossypii Glover) was 31%, 74%, and 71% less to a melon aphid-resistant muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.) breeding line than to the susceptible recurrent parent in a field cage study. Aphid-resistant and susceptible plants served equally well as the virus source. The highest rate of infection was noted when target plants were all melon-aphid susceptible, least (26.7%) when the target plants were all melon-aphid resistant, and intermediate (69.4%) when the target plants were an equal mix of aphid-resistant and susceptible plants. The number of viruliferous aphids per plant required to cause a 50% infection varied from five to 20 on susceptible controls and from 60 to possibly more than 400 on a range of melon aphid- resistant populations. An F family from a cross of the melon aphid-resistant AR Topmark (AR TM) with the susceptible ‘PMR 45’ had significantly less resistance to virus transmission than AR TM.
    [Show full text]
  • Interaction of Tobacco Etch Virus and the Root-Knot Nematode, Meloidogyne Incognita in Chile Pepper, Capsicum Frutescens
    Interaction of tobacco etch virus and the root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita in chile pepper, Capsicum frutescens Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Koenning, Stephen Robert Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 25/09/2021 20:46:59 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/555147 INTERACTION OF TOBACCO ETCH VIRUS AND THE ROOT-KNOT NEMATODE, MELOIDOGYNE INCOGNITA IN CHILE PEPPER, CAPSICUM FRUTESCENS by Stephen Robert Koenning A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF PLANT PATHOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1 9 7 9 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfill­ ment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowl­ edgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the inter­ ests of scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • Melon Aphid Or Cotton Aphid, Aphis Gossypii Glover (Insecta: Hemiptera: Aphididae)1 John L
    EENY-173 Melon Aphid or Cotton Aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover (Insecta: Hemiptera: Aphididae)1 John L. Capinera2 Distribution generation can be completed parthenogenetically in about seven days. Melon aphid occurs in tropical and temperate regions throughout the world except northernmost areas. In the In the south, and at least as far north as Arkansas, sexual United States, it is regularly a pest in the southeast and forms are not important. Females continue to produce southwest, but is occasionally damaging everywhere. Be- offspring without mating so long as weather allows feeding cause melon aphid sometimes overwinters in greenhouses, and growth. Unlike many aphid species, melon aphid is and may be introduced into the field with transplants in the not adversely affected by hot weather. Melon aphid can spring, it has potential to be damaging almost anywhere. complete its development and reproduce in as little as a week, so numerous generations are possible under suitable Life Cycle and Description environmental conditions. The life cycle differs greatly between north and south. In the north, female nymphs hatch from eggs in the spring on Egg the primary hosts. They may feed, mature, and reproduce When first deposited, the eggs are yellow, but they soon parthenogenetically (viviparously) on this host all summer, become shiny black in color. As noted previously, the eggs or they may produce winged females that disperse to normally are deposited on catalpa and rose of sharon. secondary hosts and form new colonies. The dispersants typically select new growth to feed upon, and may produce Nymph both winged (alate) and wingless (apterous) female The nymphs vary in color from tan to gray or green, and offspring.
    [Show full text]
  • Seasonal Abundance and Diversity of Aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) in a Pepper Production Region in Jamaica
    POPULATION ECOLOGY Seasonal Abundance and Diversity of Aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) in a Pepper Production Region in Jamaica 1 2 3 SHARON A. MCDONALD, SUSAN E. HALBERT, SUE A. TOLIN, AND BRIAN A. NAULT Department of Entomology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061 Environ. Entomol. 32(3): 499Ð509 (2003) ABSTRACT Seasonal dispersal and diversity of aphid species were monitored on pepper farms in St. Catherine, Jamaica throughout 1998 and 1999 to identify the most likely vectors of tobacco etch virus (TEV) in pepper Þelds. Flight activity was monitored weekly on Þve farms using water pan traps. More than 30 aphid species were identiÞed, 12 of which are new records for Jamaica. Ninety-two percent of the aphids captured from October 1998 through July 1999 belonged to only seven of the Ͼ30 species identiÞed. Of these seven species, Aphis gossypii Glover and those in the Uroleucon ambrosiae (Thomas) complex comprised more than two-thirds of the total. Five known vectors of TEV were captured: A. gossypii, Aphis craccivora Koch, Aphis spiraecola Patch, Myzus persicae (Sulzer), and Lipaphis pseudobrassicae Davis. Generally, more aphids were collected from mid-September through mid-May than from mid-May through mid-September. The inßuence that rainfall and temperature had on periods of aphid ßight activity also was investigated. Results indicated that ßight of some species increased 3Ð4 wk after a rainfall event, whereas temperature did not appear to affect ßight activity. High populations of A. gossypii as well as the presence of four additional known TEV vectors were encountered in October and November, which is the period that signiÞcant acreage is transplanted to pepper for harvest to coincide with the winter export market.
    [Show full text]
  • Infection Cycle of Watermelon Mosaic Virus
    Infection Cycle of Watermelon Mosaic Virus By TAKASHI YAMAMOTO* Agronomy Division, Shikoku National Agricultural Experiment Station (Senyucho, Zentsuji, Kagawa, 765 Japan) Among the viruses occurring in cucurbits transmission. As to other vectors, many of in Japan, the most prevalent ones are water­ them showed low parasitism to cucurbits and melon mosaic virus (WMV) and cucumber low ability of transmitting WMV, so that their mosaic virus (CMV) . Of them, WMV occurs role for the spread of WMV in the field was mainly in the summer season in the Kanto not clear. A survey conducted in fields of region and westward. The WMV diseases in cucurbits in 1981 spring to know the kinds of cucurbits cause not only systemic symptoms aphids which fly to the cucurbits at the initial such as mosaic, dwarf, etc. but also fruit mal­ incidence of WMV showed that more than a formation, thus giving severe damage to crops. half of the aphid species sampled were vector In addition, the control of WMV is quite dif­ species (Table 2). The initial incidence of ficult as the virus is transmitted by aphids WMV occurs usually in the period from mid­ and that carried by plant sap is also infectious. May to early-June at the survey site (west Thus, WMV is one of the greatest obstacles part of Kagawa Prefecture), and this period to the production of cucurbits. coincides with the period of abundant appear­ The infection cycle of the WMV, including ance of aphids. In this period, vector species the routes of transmission of the virus by less parasitic to cucurbits also flew in plenty aphids, which is the most important in con­ to cucurbits.
    [Show full text]
  • Virus World As an Evolutionary Network of Viruses and Capsidless Selfish Elements
    Virus World as an Evolutionary Network of Viruses and Capsidless Selfish Elements Koonin, E. V., & Dolja, V. V. (2014). Virus World as an Evolutionary Network of Viruses and Capsidless Selfish Elements. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 78(2), 278-303. doi:10.1128/MMBR.00049-13 10.1128/MMBR.00049-13 American Society for Microbiology Version of Record http://cdss.library.oregonstate.edu/sa-termsofuse Virus World as an Evolutionary Network of Viruses and Capsidless Selfish Elements Eugene V. Koonin,a Valerian V. Doljab National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland, USAa; Department of Botany and Plant Pathology and Center for Genome Research and Biocomputing, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USAb Downloaded from SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................278 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................278 PREVALENCE OF REPLICATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS COMPARED TO CAPSID PROTEINS AMONG VIRUS HALLMARK GENES.......................279 CLASSIFICATION OF VIRUSES BY REPLICATION-EXPRESSION STRATEGY: TYPICAL VIRUSES AND CAPSIDLESS FORMS ................................279 EVOLUTIONARY RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN VIRUSES AND CAPSIDLESS VIRUS-LIKE GENETIC ELEMENTS ..............................................280 Capsidless Derivatives of Positive-Strand RNA Viruses....................................................................................................280
    [Show full text]
  • Viral Diseases of Cucurbits
    report on RPD No. 926 PLANT December 2012 DEPARTMENT OF CROP SCIENCES DISEASE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN VIRAL DISEASES OF CUCURBITS Most common viral diseases of cucurbits in Illinois are cucumber mosaic (Cucumber mosaic virus), papaya ringspot (Papaya ringspot virus), squash mosaic (Squash mosaic virus), watermelon mosaic (Watermelon mosaic virus), and zucchini yellow mosaic (Zucchini yellow mosaic virus). Depends on the time of infection, viral diseases could cause up to 100% yield losses in cucurbit fields in Illinois. Statewide surveys and laboratory and greenhouse tests conducted during 2004-2006 showed that Watermelon mosaic virus (WMV) was the most prevalent virus in commercial gourd, pumpkin, and squash fields in Illinois. Squash mosaic virus (SqMV) was the second most prevalent virus in commercial gourd, pumpkin, and squash fields. SqMV was detected in more counties than any other five viruses. Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV), Papaya ringspot virus (PRSV), and Zucchini yellow mosaic virus (ZYMV) were less prevalent in commercial gourd, pumpkin, and squash fields. All of five viruses were present alone and mixed in the samples tested. Earlier in the growing seasons (July and early August), single-virus infections were detected. Mixed infections were more common from mid August until the end of the growing season in October. Dual infection of WMV and SqMV was the most prevalent mixed virus infection detected in the fields. Most viruses infecting pumpkin and squash showed similar symptoms. The most common symptoms observed in the commercial fields and in the greenhouse studies were light- and dark- green mosaic, puckering, veinbanding, veinclearing, and deformation of leaves of gourd, pumpkin, and squash.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 1. Virus Incidence in the Surveyed Areas, Fall 2004
    Aziz Baameur Pepper Viruses—Survey Update 1/4 Pepper Viruses: Survey Update Aziz Baameur, UCCE Farm Advisor-- UCCE Santa Clara, San Benito, & Santa Cruz Counties INTRODUCTION Several viruses attack pepper worldwide. In California, many of these viruses have created difficulties for growers. However, we witnessed cycles of high virus presence, viral infection, and yield losses alternating with cycles of low-level impact. Year 2004 was one of those years where the central coast production area witnessed a high level of virus presence. The following report is based on a field survey we undertook in the fall of 2004 to assess the presence and identify the main viruses infecting fields in Santa Carla and San Benito counties. We focused our effort on the Gilroy and surrounding areas. Gilroy has historically exhibited a variable but sustained presence of viruses over the past 15 years. SURVEY— The survey included 14 pepper production fields. Half were growing bells and the other half chili peppers. We took 29 samples as follows: 16 were bell pepper samples, 12 were chili type samples, and one was sowthistle weed. The sampling was biased toward selecting plants that exhibiting some symptoms. All samples were catalogued and submitted to a local serology lab for virus identification. SURVEY RESULTS Infection by viruses level varied from field to field and even within given fields. Infection rate, based on rough visual rating, was between 5 to over 75% (?) per field. Several fields had large weeds populations. A couple of fields looked like they have been severally attacked and very little harvest was realized.
    [Show full text]
  • WATERMELON MOSAIC VIRUS of PUMPKIN (Cucurbita Maxima) from SULAWESI: IDENTIFICATION, TRANSMISSION, and HOST RANGE
    IndonesianWatermelon Journalmosaic virusof Agricultural of pumpkin Science 3(1) 2002: 33-36 33 Short Communication WATERMELON MOSAIC VIRUS OF PUMPKIN (Cucurbita maxima) FROM SULAWESI: IDENTIFICATION, TRANSMISSION, AND HOST RANGE Wasmo Wakmana, M.S. Kontonga, D.S. Teakleb, and D.M. Persleyc aIndonesian Cereals Research Institute, Jalan Ratulangi 274, Maros 90154, Indonesia bDepartment of Microbiology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld. 407, Australia cDepartment of Primary Industries, Plant Protection Unit, Meiers Rd., Indooroopilly, Qld. 4088, Australia ABSTRACT have a world-wide distribution including China, Canada, USA, Europe, South Africa, Japan, Hawaii, A mosaic disease of pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima) was spread and Cuba (Gibbs and Harrison, 1970; van Regen- widely in Sulawesi. Since the virus had not yet been identified, mortel, 1971; Lisa and Lecoq, 1984). a study was conducted to identify the disease through mechani- Some viruses that infected cucurbits were able to cal inoculation, aphid vector transmission, host range, and infect many other hosts, e.g., cucumber mosaic virus electron microscopic test. Crude sap of infected pumpkin leaf samples was rubbed on the cotyledons of healthy pumpkin (CMV) also infected tobacco, chili, tomato, corn, seedlings for mechanical inoculation. For insect transmission, banana, celery, bean, etc. (Walker, 1957; Semangun, five infective aphids were infected per seedling. Seedlings of 1994), cucumber, melon, squash, peppers, spinach, eleven different species were inoculated mechanically for host beets, crucifers, gladiolus, lilies, petunias, zinnias, range test. Clarified sap was examined under the electron and many weeds (Agrios, 1969). In Yogyakarta, at microscope. Seeds of two pumpkin fruits from two different least four viruses infected cucurbits, i.e., CMV, water- infected plants were planted and observed for disease trans- mission up to one-month old seedlings.
    [Show full text]
  • Tobacco Etch Virus
    Plant Pathology Circular No. 297 Fla. Dept. Agric. & Consumer Serv. July 1987 Division of Plant Industry TOBACCO ETCH VIRUS L. L. Bremanl Tobacco etch virus (TEV) was originally reported in Kentucky in 1928 by Valleau and Johnson (10). TEV is presently found in North and South America (7), and is common in Florida. TEV is a member of the Potyvirus group, primarily aphid transmitted in a stylet-borne, nonpersistent manner. It causes disease and yield loss to several solanaceous crops, including Capsicum annuum L. (sweet pepper), Capsicum frutescens L. (tabasco pepper), Nicotiana tabacum L. (tobacco), and Lycopersicon esculentum (tomato). Overall, more than 100 species in 19 dicotyledonous families were found to be experimentally susceptible (4,7). Fig. 1. Tobacco leaves. A) Vein clearing and mottling of tobacco leaf infected with TEV. B) Healthy tobacco leaf. (DPI Photos by Jeffery Lotz.) 1Laboratory Technician IV, Bureau of Plant Pathology, Fla. Dept. Agric. & Consumer Services, P. O. Box 1269, Gainesville, FL 32602. Symptoms. Initial symptoms of TEV appear as vein clearing on young expanding tobacco leaves, 7 to 14 days after inoculation. Leaf mottle, chlorosis and/or etching are other symptoms associated with this viral infection. Etching appears as gray or necrotic lines, circles or flecks. Considerable symptom variation occurs due to the strain of infecting virus, growing conditions, plant vigor, and host variety. Field symptoms on tobacco with TEV infection are often noticed at the approach of the flower bud stage. They consist of vein clearing, mottle, and necrotic lines. Symptoms intensify after topping (5,9). Symptoms on pepper and tomato include mottle and distortion of leaves and fruit.
    [Show full text]
  • Aphid Transmission of Potyvirus: the Largest Plant-Infecting RNA Virus Genus
    Supplementary Aphid Transmission of Potyvirus: The Largest Plant-Infecting RNA Virus Genus Kiran R. Gadhave 1,2,*,†, Saurabh Gautam 3,†, David A. Rasmussen 2 and Rajagopalbabu Srinivasan 3 1 Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA 2 Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA; [email protected] 3 Department of Entomology, University of Georgia, 1109 Experiment Street, Griffin, GA 30223, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]. † Authors contributed equally. Received: 13 May 2020; Accepted: 15 July 2020; Published: date Abstract: Potyviruses are the largest group of plant infecting RNA viruses that cause significant losses in a wide range of crops across the globe. The majority of viruses in the genus Potyvirus are transmitted by aphids in a non-persistent, non-circulative manner and have been extensively studied vis-à-vis their structure, taxonomy, evolution, diagnosis, transmission and molecular interactions with hosts. This comprehensive review exclusively discusses potyviruses and their transmission by aphid vectors, specifically in the light of several virus, aphid and plant factors, and how their interplay influences potyviral binding in aphids, aphid behavior and fitness, host plant biochemistry, virus epidemics, and transmission bottlenecks. We present the heatmap of the global distribution of potyvirus species, variation in the potyviral coat protein gene, and top aphid vectors of potyviruses. Lastly, we examine how the fundamental understanding of these multi-partite interactions through multi-omics approaches is already contributing to, and can have future implications for, devising effective and sustainable management strategies against aphid- transmitted potyviruses to global agriculture.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) For: Aphis Nerii
    Rapid Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) for: Aphis nerii April 2015 Stage 1: Initiation 1. What is the name of the pest? Aphis nerii Boyer de Fonscolombe (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Up to 11 synonyms are associated with A. nerii, though only Aphis lutescens appears regularly in the literature. Common names: oleander aphid, milkweed aphid. 2. What initiated this rapid PRA? In November 2014 entomologists at Fera received samples of an aphid from a private residence in London that were confirmed as Aphis nerii (Sharon Reid pers. comm. 05.11.2014). These samples had been requested after the presence of the pest was published online in a blog (Taylor 2012). The species has been present at the residence every year since 2008, indicating an established population. An update to the 2002 PRA (MacLeod, 2002) was initiated to determine the implications of this establishment and the impacts the pest may have in the UK. 3. What is the PRA area? The PRA area is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 1 Stage 2: Risk Assessment 4. What is the pest’s status in the EC Plant Health Directive (Council Directive 2000/29/EC1) and in the lists of EPPO2? The pest is not listed in the EC Plant Health Directive and is not recommended for regulation as a quarantine pest by EPPO, nor is it on the EPPO Alert List. 5. What is the pest’s current geographical distribution? The distribution of A. nerii has been described as found in “tropical to warm temperate regions throughout the world” (McAuslane, 2014) as well as including many of the remote pacific islands (Blackman et al., 1994).
    [Show full text]