Antixenosis Resistance of Pear Cultivars to Pear Psylla [(Cacopsylla pyricola (Foerster)] under the Environmental Conditions of Karaj in Iran | ||
| نهال و بذر | ||
| Volume 39, Issue 4, August 2024, Pages 526-495 PDF (1.48 M) | ||
| Document Type: RESEARCH ARTICLE | ||
| DOI: 10.22092/spj.2024.364265.1336 | ||
| Authors | ||
| M. Latifian* 1; H. Abdollahi2; R. Ghaemi3 | ||
| 1Professor, Temperate Fruits Research Center, Horticultural Sciences Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran. | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Temperate Fruits Research Center, Horticultural Sciences Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran. | ||
| 3Assistant Professor, Nematology Research Department, Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Pear psylla [(Cacopsylla pyricola (Foerster)] is one of the most important pests affecting pear production. The main purpose of this research was to investigate the resistance of pear cultivars to pear psylla for recommendation in integrated pest management and national pear breeding programs. This research was carried out using randomized complete block design with foure replications in Kamalshahr research station in Karaj, Iran, in four growing seasons from 2019 to 2023. Nine pear cultivars; Boheme, Shah Mieveh, Natanzi, Sebri, Dargazi, Louis Bonne, Harvest Queen, Potomac and Coscia. Data about psyllids population at different stages; eggs, nymphs, and dult, was collected and recorded at the peak of its activity, i.e., from early February to November, every seven days. Antixenosis resistance indices included; attraction index, mean crowding intensity, relative abundance establishment rate, non-preference index and prevalence index of eggs, nymphs and adults were calculated. Tree characteristics; form, one year old branches growth, leaves, flowers and fruits were examined. The results showed that the most resistant cultivars to pear psylla were; Cosia, Boheme, Sabri, Natanzi and Potomac. Atteraction index was 0.99, 0.99 and 0.95, crowding intensity index was 58.30, 149.14 and 16.13, relative establishment rate was 3.68, 3.65 and 3.40 for egg, nymph and adult stages, respectively. Non-perference index was 98.04, 98.06 and 19.98 and the prevalence index was 49.66, 49.47 and 47.50 for egg, nymph and adult stages, respectively. Keywords: Pear, Psylla, Host finding, Host acceptance, Cultivar sensitivity. Introduction Current management practices are sufficient to effectively control pear psylla (Murray et al., 2021). In many countries, collections of pear cultivars have been established in some important pear-growing areas with a wide range of cultivars of national, local and foreign origin to evaluate resistance to diseases and pests (Braniste and Militaru, 2007). Antixenosis resistance of pear cultivars to pear psylla has been described with non-preferential egg laying. It has also been found that this type of resistance mechanism affects the size of the initial nymph population (Bell and Puterka, 2003). The main goal of this research was to investigate the details of the host preference and resistance mechanism of nine pear cultivars to pear psylla for recommendation in integrated pest management and national pear breeding programs. Materials and Methods This research was carried out using randomized complete block design with foure replications in Kamalshahr research station in Karaj, Iran, in four growing seasons from 2019 to 2023. Nine pear cultivars; Boheme, Shah Mieveh, Natanzi, Sebri, Dargazi, Beiruti (Louis Bonne), Harvest Queen, Potomac and Coscia. Data about psyllids population at different stages; eggs, nymphs, and dult, was collected and recorded at the peak of its activity, i.e., from early February to November, every 7 days. Antixenosis resistance indices included; attraction index, mean crowding intensity, relative abundance establishment rate, non-preference index and prevalence index of eggs, nymphs and adults were calculated. Tree characteristics; form, one year old branches growth, leaves, flowers and fruits were examined. After testing normality of the data Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, analysis of variance was performed based on priciples of random complete block design using IBM SPSS Statistics 27.0.1.0 software. For grouping pear cultivars based on the level of sensitivity to pear psylla, cluster analysis was employed. The relationship between characteristics of pear cultivars and antixenosis resistance indices was studied using correlation analysis. Factor analysis was performed to identify unobservable effective combined factors on resistance mechanism based on sets of observable indices. The accuracy of cluster analysis method was examined using linear discriminant analysis (LDA), normal discriminant analysis (NDA), or discriminant function analysis and Fisher's linear discriminant analysis. Results and Discussion Shah Miveh pear cultivar was the most sensitive cultivar to pear psylla. The most resistant cultivars to pear psylla were; Coscia, Boheme, Sebri, Natanzi and Potomac. Increase in host antixenosis properties based on reduction of attraction index led to increase in the time spent in egg-laying activities, decrease in the egg-laying rate, and as its consequences, decrease in attractiveness of the host for egg-laying in resistant pear cultivars. In host-finding stage, adult psylla must randomly search in a habitat until it finds one of the important stimuli for selection of pear cultivars. Morphological stimuli of pear cultivars for host-finding include different growth characteristics of the tree, flower, leaves and availability of host. Pear cultivars resistant to pear psylla can be good alternatives to chemical control and manage the pest. It has been reported that the genetic control of resistance to pear psylla is polygenic trait (Dondini et al., 2015). This genetic mechanism reduces the possibility of the emergence of resistant biotypes of the pest, and rewards investing in development and use of resistant pear cultivars to psylla in integrated pest management and control. This approach is very important and eco-friendly. References Bell, R.L. and Puterka, G.L. 2003. Modes of host plant resistance to pear psylla: a review. Proceedings of the XI Eucarpia Symposium on Fruit Breeding and Genetics 663 (pp. 183-188). DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2004.663.26 Branişte, N. and Militaru, M. 2007. Germplasm fund of Pyrus sp. presently in ex situ Romanian collections. In X International Pear Symposium 800 (pp. 497-502). DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.800.63 Dondini, L., De Franceschi, P., Ancarani, V., Civolani, S., Fano, E.A. and Musacchi, S. 2015. Identification of a QTL for psylla resistance in pear via genome scanning approach. Scientia Horticulturae, 197, pp.568-572. DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2015.10.018 Murray, K., Jepson, P.C. and Hedstrom, C. 2021. Integrated pest management strategic plan for Oregon and Washington pears: Summary of a Workshop Held on March 5, 2020 in Hood River, Oregon. Oregon State University Extension Service. 80 pp. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Pear; Psylla; Host finding; Host acceptance; Cultivar sensitivity | ||
| References | ||
|
Antônio, A.D.C., Silva, D.J.H.D., Picanço, M.C., Santos, N.T. and Fernandes, M.E.D.S. 2011. Tomato plant inheritance of antixenotic resistance to tomato leafminer. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 46, pp.74-80. DOI: 10.1590/S0100-204X2011000100010
Asayesh, Z.M., Arzani, K., Mokhtassi-Bidgoli, A. and Abdollahi, H. 2023. Enzymatic and non-enzymatic response of grafted and ungrafted young European pear (Pyrus communis L.) trees to drought stress. Scientia Horticulturae, 310, p.111745. DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2022.111745
Baldin, E.L.L., Cruz, P.L., Morando, R., Silva, I.F., Bentivenha, J.P.F., Tozin, L.R.S. and Rodrigues, T.M. 2017. Characterization of antixenosis in soybean genotypes to Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) biotype B. Journal of Economic Entomology, 110(4), pp.1869-1876. DOI: 10.1093/jee/tox143
Bell, R.L. 1992. Additional East European Pyrus germplasm with resistance to pear psylla nymphal feeding. HortScience, 27(5), pp.412-413. DOI: 10.21273/HORTSCI.27.5.412
Bell, R.L. and Puterka, G.L. 2003. Modes of host plant resistance to pear psylla: a review. Proceedings of the XI Eucarpia Symposium on Fruit Breeding and Genetics 663 (pp. 183-188). DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2004.663.26
Bell, R.L. 2013. Inheritance of resistance to pear psylla nymphal feeding in pear
Bell, R.L. 2014. Fruit quality of pear psylla-resistant parental germplasm. HortScience, 49(2), pp.138-140. DOI: 10.21273/HORTSCI.49.2.138
Bell, R.L. 2015. Effect of resistant and susceptible East European pears on development and mortality of the pear psylla, Cacopsylla pyricola (Förster). HortScience, 50(5), pp.661-665. DOI: 10.21273/HORTSCI.50.5.661
Benedek, P., Szabó, T., Soltész, M., Szabó, Z. and Konrád-Németh, C. 2010. Susceptibility of European pear genotypes in a gene bank to pear psylla damage and possible exploitation of resistant varieties in organic farming. International Journal of Horticultural Science, 16(3), pp.95-101. DOI: 10.31421/IJHS/16/3/904
Branişte, N. and Militaru, M. 2007. Germplasm fund of Pyrus sp. presently in ex situ Romanian collections. In X International Pear Symposium 800 (pp. 497-502). DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.800.63
Civolani, S., Mirandola, D., Benetti, L., Finetti, L., Pezzi, M. and Bernacchia, G. 2022. Effects of acibenzolar-s-methyl on the probing behaviour and mortality of Cacopsylla pyri on pear plants. Insects, 13(6), p.525. DOI: 10.3390/insects13060525
Civolani, S., Soroker, V., Cooper, W.R. and Horton, D.R. 2023. Diversity, biology, and management of the pear psyllids: a global look. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 116(2), p.saad025. DOI:10.1093/aesa/saad025
Cooper, W.R. and Horton, D.R. 2017. Elicitors of host plant defenses partially suppress Cacopsylla pyricola (Hemiptera: Psyllidae) populations under field conditions. Journal of Insect Science, 17(2), p.49. DOI:10.1093/jisesa/iex020
Cooper, W.R., Horton, D.R., Wildung, M.R., Jensen, A.S., Thinakaran, J., Rendon, D., Nottingham, L.B., Beers, E.H., Wohleb, C.H., Hall, D.G. and Stelinski, L.L. 2019. Host and non-host ‘whistle stops’ for psyllids: molecular gut content analysis by high-throughput sequencing reveals landscape-level movements of Psylloidea (Hemiptera). Environmental entomology, 48(3), pp.554-566. DOI: 10.1093/ee/nvz038
Dondini, L., De Franceschi, P., Ancarani, V., Civolani, S., Fano, E.A. and Musacchi, S. 2015. Identification of a QTL for psylla resistance in pear via genome scanning approach. Scientia Horticulturae, 197, pp.568-572. DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2015.10.018
Ehteshami-Moinabadi, M. 2022. Properties of fault zones and their influences on rainfall-induced landslides, examples from Alborz and Zagros ranges. Environmental Earth Sciences, 81(5), p.168. DOI: 10.1007/s12665-022-10283-2
Frades, I. and Matthiesen, R. 2010. Overview on techniques in cluster analysis. Bioinformatics Methods in Clinical Research, pp.81-107. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-60327-194-3_5
Fraley, C. and Raftery, A.E. 2002. Model-based clustering, discriminant analysis, and density estimation. Journal of the American statistical Association, 97(458), pp.611-631. DOI: 10.1198/016214502760047131
Gogtay, N.J. and Thatte, U.M. 2017. Principles of correlation analysis. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, 65(3), pp.78-81.
Hagh, F.T., Abdollahi, H., Ghasemi, A. and Fathi, D. 2011. Vegetative and reproductive traits of some Iranian native pear (Pyrus communis L.) cultivars on DUS descriptor. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal, 27(1), pp.37-55. DOI: 10.22092/SPIJ.2017.111049
Hamzehzarghani, H., Kushalappa, A.C., Dion, Y., Rioux, S., Comeau, A., Yaylayan, V., Marshall, W.D. and Mather, D.E. 2005. Metabolic profiling and factor analysis to discriminate quantitative resistance in wheat cultivars against fusarium head blight. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology, 66(4), pp.119-133. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmpp.2005.05.005
Horton, D.R. and Krysan, J.L. 1990. Probing and oviposition-related activity of summerform pear psylla (Homoptera: Psyllidae) on host and nonhost substrates. Environmental entomology, 19(5), pp.1463-1468. DOI: 10.1093/ee/19.5.1463
Horton, D.R., Burts, E.C., Unruh, T.R., Krysan, J.L., Coop, L.B. and Croft, B.A. 1993. Intraorchard changes in distribution of winterform pear psylla (Homoptera: Psyllidae) associated with leaf fall in pear. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 86(5), pp.599-608. DOI: 10.1093/aesa/86.5.599
Inayatullah, C., Webster, J.A. and Fargo, W.S. 1990. Index for measuring plant resistance to insects. Entomologist, 109(3), pp.146-152.
Krisnawati, A., Bayu, M.S.Y.I. and Adie, M.M. 2017. Identification of soybean genotypes based on antixenosis and antibiosis to the armyworm (Spodoptera litura). Nusantara Bioscience, 9(2), pp.164-169. DOI: 10.13057/nusbiosci/n090210
Machlitt, D. 1998. Persea mite on avocados: quick field counting method. Subtropical Fruit News, 6, pp.1-4.
Montanari, S., Guérif, P., Ravon, E., Denancé, C., Muranty, H., Velasco, R., Chagné, D., Bus, V.G., Robert, P., Perchepied, L. and Durel, C.E. 2015. Genetic mapping of Cacopsylla pyri resistance in an interspecific pear (Pyrus spp.) population. Tree Genetics & Genomes, 11, pp.1-14. DOI: 10.1007/s11295-015-0901-y
Murray, K., Jepson, P.C. and Hedstrom, C. 2021. Integrated pest management strategic plan for Oregon and Washington pears: Summary of a Workshop Held on March 5, 2020 in Hood River, Oregon. Oregon State University Extension Service. 80 pp.
Reiczigel, J., Lang, Z., Rózsa, L. and Tóthmérész, B. 2005. Properties of crowding indices and statistical tools to analyze parasite crowding data. Journal of Parasitology, 91(2), pp.245-252. DOI: 10.1645/GE-281R1
Robert, P., Guérif, P., Lemoine, J. and Le Lézec, M. 2004. Criblage de génotypes de" Pyrus" vis-à-vis de la résistance au psylle du poirier" Cacopsylla pyri"(L.). Cahiers Agricultures, 13(4), pp.349-354.
Scutareanu, P., Ma, Y., Claeys, M., Dommisse, R. and Sabelis, M.W. 1999. Induction of ap-coumaroyl trihydroxy triterpene acid in psylla-infested and Mechanically Damaged Pear Trees. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 25, pp.2177-2191. DOI: 10.1023/A:1021001209875
Štarhová Serbina, L., Corretto, E., Enciso Garcia, J.S., Berta, M., Giovanelli, T., Dittmer, J. and Schuler, H. 2023. Seasonal wild dance of dual endosymbionts in the pear psyllid Cacopsylla pyricola (Hemiptera: Psylloidea). Scientific Reports, 13(1), p.16038. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-43130-w
Tu, X.B., Fan, Y.L., McNeill, M. and Zhang, Z.H. 2018. Including predator presence in a refined model for assessing resistance of alfalfa cultivar to aphids. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 17(2), pp.397-405. DOI: 10.1016/S2095-3119(17)61708-8
| ||
|
Statistics Article View: 1,476 PDF Download: 930 |
||
Journal management system. designed by sinaweb