THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF VARIETIES OF BEANS RESISTANT TO CERTAIN INSECT PESTS OF LEGUMES, DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By JOSE CALDERON GUEVARA, Ing. Agr., M. Sc. The Ohio State University. 1957 Approved by: CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ...................... 1 REVIEW OE LITERATURE ............................. 4 Insect Outbreaks .................... 4 Food Plant Selection by Insects ................ 11 The Mechanisms of Resistance .................. 14 Cause of Resistance ........................... 18 Factors that Affect the Expression or the Permanence of Resistance .................. 22 SYNOPSIS OF THE BIOLOGY OF THE APION POD WEEVIL .... 29 SELECTION OF VARIETIES RESISTANT TO THE APION POD WEEVIL, APION GODMANI WAG................... 30 Seasonal infestation of A. godmani Wagner in Susceptible Varieties .............. 31 Investigation of the Cause of Resistance on beans to Apion godmani Wagner ........... 37 Crossing Program for A. godmani Resistance ....... 42 Classification of Bean Varieties and Lines ac­ cording to Resistance to the ApionPod Weevil .. 49 NOTES ON THE BIOLOGY OF THE SEED CORN MAGGOT IN MEXICO .... 52 Experiments on Seed Color Preference of Hylemya cilicrura .................................. 59 Preliminary Selection of Resistant Varieties to the Seed Corn Maggot ........... 61, ii PRELIMINARY EXPERIMENTS ON THE SELECTION. OF BEAN VARIETIES RESISTANT TO THE POTATO LEAFHOPPER .... 64 Experiments at the University Farm, Columbus,Ohio. 67 Experimental Designs ........................... 67 Relationship Between the Potato Leafhopper and Bean Plants ................................. 68 Leafhopper Damage .................... ......... 69 Recuperation of the Bean Plant from Insect Attack and Seasonal Differences .............. 72 Effect of Weather on the Potato Leafhopper and the Bean Plant .............................. 76 Tolerance of Different Bean Varieties to the Potato Leafhopper ...... 77 Cause of Resistance of Beans to the Leafhoppers .. 82 Method of Estimating Resistance and Susceptibi­ lity of Bean Varieties to the Potato' Leaf­ hopper ................... 84 Results in Resistance to Leafhopper Attack .... 86 DISCUSSION....................................... 94 SUMMARY ............ 97 GLOSSARY OF ABREVIATIONS .......................... 99 REFERENCES CITED .................. 100 ■ " • V " . SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................. 108 AUTOBIOGRAPHY .................................... 117 LIST OP TABLES Table. 1 Per cent of infestation of Apion godmani in two susceptible bean varieties. Chapingo, Mex. 1951. 2 Infestation of A. godmani on three planting dates of two susceptible bean varieties flowering at the same time. 5 A. godmani attack on different pod-number samples of fiayo Gordo bean. Chapingo, Mexico. 1951* 4 Comparison of bean plant characteristics in varie­ ties resistant and susceptible to A. godmani. Chapingo, Mexico. 1952. *” 5 Groups of varieties or lines used in crosses for A* godmani resistance. 1952. 6 yields of bean lines and varieties under apion pod weevil attack. Chapingo, Mexico, 1955* 7 Yield of bean lines and varieties under apion pod weevil attack. Chapingo, Mexico. 1955* 8 Yield of bean lines and varieties under apion pod weevil attack. Chapingo, Mexico, 1955* 9 Classification of lines and varieties of beans according to resistance to the apion pod weevil, Chapingo, Mexico. 1955. 10 Range of variation of apion pod weevil attack in interspecific crosses in beans. 11 Per cent of bean seeds and seedling damaged by the seed corn maggot after a few minutes to four days exposure to the adult flies. Chapingo, Mexico. 1955* 12 Average per cent of seed corn maggot damage on different bean varieties grouped by colors. 13 Bean varieties from Charleston, S.C. resistant to H. cilicrura in Columbus, Ohio. 1956. 14 Bean varieties from various companies resistant to H. cilicrura. Columbus, Ohio. 1956. iv 15 Bean varieties with rolled type of damage symptoms caused by the potato leafhopper, 16 List of varieties with recuperative capacity after the attack by E, fabae. Columbus, Ohio, 1956, 17 Population of nymphs of the potato leafhopper on susceptible and tolerant varieties. 18 Comparison of total yield (in pounds per plot) of different varieties in relation to resistance to Empoasca fabae. 19 Varieties resistant to the potato leafhopper in Columbus, Ohio. 1956. 20 Bean varieties of low resistance to the potato leafhopper. Columbus, Ohio. 1956. v LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Fig. 1 Apion pod weevil adult. 2 Relative infestation of apion pod weevil in two susceptible varieties. Chapingo, Mexico. 1951* 5 Per cent attack of A. godmani on two bean varieties. Chapingo, Mex. 19527 4 Rate of increasing in per cent of seed maggot attack. 5 Bean seedling damaged by H. cilicrura. 6 Recuperation of a bean plant after H. cilicrura damage• 7 Adult potato leafhopper (Empoasca fabae Harris). 8 Symptoms of leafhopper attack showing characteristic leaf rolling. 9 Recuperation from leaf-roll type of damage. 10 Stunt type of damage on untreated portion of sus­ ceptible variety. 11 Nymphal population of E. fabae on susceptible and resistant bean varieties. 12 Var. 138-1-14-3-2-M-M a pubescent susceptible variety from Colombia, S. A. 15 A leafhopper-resistant variety Contender (CH). 14 Variety Seminole 5170 (K) resistant to leafhopper attack. 15 Leafhopper-resistant variety Glades (CH). vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Dwight M. Delong, the Ohio State University for his help­ ful suggestions and criticisms and to Dr. E. J. Wellhausen, Director of the agricultural branch of the Rockefeller Foundation in Mexico for his sponsorship in my studies. Thanks is likewise extended to Dr. George B. Riley, the Ohio State University, for his invaluable assistance in the preparation of this paper and also to Dr. Walter N. Brown, Horticultural Department, the Ohio State University for his * helpful and timely assistance during the field work in Columbus, Ohio. The author is grateful to Dr. William D. Yerkes, Plant Pathologist, The Rockefeller Foundation in Mexico; Dr. Robert F. Ruppel, Entomologist, The Rockefeller Foundation Colombia, S. A.; Dr. James C. Hoffman, Horticultorist, The Southeastern Vegetable Breeding Laboratory, Charleston, S.C. Asgrow Export Corporation, F. H. Woodruff & Sons, Ferry Morse Seed Co.; Corneli Seed Co.; Rogers Bros. Seed Co. and Atlee Burpee Co. for providing bean seed samples, making the study of leafhopper resistant varieties possible.// : ! Deepest appreciation is expressed to my wife Carmen R. de Guevara for her valuable aid and forbearance in the course of this investigation. vii INTRODUCTION "In the Botanical Garden of the National School of Agriculture at Montpellier, France, stands a statue dedicated to Professor G. Foex, commemo­ rating his success in saving the grape industry of France from the damage of phylloxera by re­ sistant varieties from America" (Coons 1951)* This is perhaps the classic example of insect control by the use of resistant plant varieties and has remained a major means of control for this insect since late in the nineteen century. There are many less well known examples of control of insect damage by the use of resistant plant varieties which have saved enormous amounts of money for farmers. Painter (1951) in his unique book on this sub­ ject "Insect Resistance in Crop Plants", describes the de­ velopment of wheat varieties resistant to hessian fly in Kansas, California and Indiana, which are now being grown on several million acres. One limiting factor in the produc­ tion of cotton in certain regions in Africa used to be the leafhopper Empoasca fascialis (Jac,), but since the selec­ tion of a single plant resistant to the insect and subse­ quent increase of seed from this parent plant, cotton is now grown over thousands of acres, (Parnell 1935)* Varie­ ties of rice, sorghums, potatoes, peas, corn and several other crops resistant to insect attack are being grown successfully by farmers all over the world. - 1- The use of varieties resistant to insect damage is ac­ cepted universally, hut in countries like Mexico, with an underdeveloped type of agriculture, where insecticides and equipment for their application are very expensive, any biological or cultural method of control is quite welcome. Unfortunately the cultural or biological methods do not completely solve the insect problems in many cases. It is perhaps as an adjunct method to other control measures that the use of resistant varieties to insects is most valuable. This has been demonstrated by Painter, Snelling and others in the case of the chinch bug, where there is a need for insecticidal barriers or other means for protection of young corn and sorghum plants, but re­ sistant varieties of these crops furnish almost the only practical defense against the second and third brood bugs as well as against the few of the first brood that get through the barriers, A combination of resistant varieties and insecticides may be used satisfactorily in the control of the potato leafhopper in beans. With this combination farmers can save about half of the insecticidal treatments they regularly apply each season to beans. After the "DDT storm" (English 1955) there seems to be a modern trend toward better evaluation of quantitative insect losses in agricultural crops. With increasing knowl­ edge of biological and taxonomic information of insects, an integrated