Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T01:51:41.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

RESISTANCE TO THE FLEA BEETLE PHYLLOTRETA CRUCIFERAE (COLEOPTERA: CHRYSOMELIDAE) IN FALSE FLAX, CAMELINA SATIVA (BRASSICACEAE)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Palaniswamy Pachagounder
Affiliation:
Cereal Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 195 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2M9
Robert J. Lamb
Affiliation:
Cereal Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 195 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2M9
Robert P. Bodnaryk
Affiliation:
Cereal Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 195 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2M9

Abstract

Feeding damage by the crucifer flea beetle, Phyllotreta cruciferae (Goeze), was assessed on 51 accessions of false flax, Camelina sativa L., and compared with damage to seven other crucifer species. Three experiments were conducted on seedlings in laboratory arenas infested with field-collected beetles. Feeding damage was estimated visually at daily intervals for up to 7 days. Natural infestation of false flax and other crucifers was observed in the field. Flea beetles fed little (0–10% consumption) on cotyledons or true leaves of any of the false flax accessions, and fed more (59–100% consumption) on the other crucifers. Flea beetles were observed sitting on false flax in the field, sometimes in high numbers, but they did not feed. In the laboratory, beetles eventually fed on cotyledons and leaves and once feeding was initiated, it tended to continue. Resistance in false flax may result from the absence of cues that initiate feeding, rather than a feeding deterrent. The high level of resistance in false flax would likely be economically beneficial if this species is developed as an oilseed crop. False flax could also be useful experimentally for identifying the cues that attract flea beetles to plants and stimulate their feeding.

Résumé

Les dommages causés par l’Altise des crucifères, Phyllotreta cruciferae (Goeze), ont été évalués sur 51 plants de la caméline Camelina sativa L., et comparés aux dommages causés chez sept autre espèces de crucifères. Trois expériences ont été tentées sur de jeunes plants dans des arènes aménagées en laboratoire et infestées par des coléoptères récoltés en nature. Les dommages causés par l’alimentation des insectes étaient évalués visuellement chaque jour pendant une période allant jusqu’à 7 jours. Les infestations naturelles de la caméline et d’autres crucifères ont été suivies sur le terrain. Les altises s’alimentaient peu (0–10%) sur les cotylédons ou sur les feuilles des plants de caméline et s’alimentaient davantage (59–100%) sur les autres crucifères. Des altises ont été observées sur des plants de caméline en nature, parfois en grands nombres, mais elles ne mangeaient pas. En laboratoire, les altises se sont éventuellement nourries à même les cotylédons ou les feuilles, et, une fois l’opération commencée, elles avaient tendance à continuer. La résistance de la plante peut être attribuable à l’absence de stimulus déclencheurs de l’alimentation plutôt qu’à un effet repoussant. La résistance de la caméline pourrait s’avérer un atout économique important si cette plante était éventuellement cultivée pour son huile. La plante pourrait également servir dans les expériences destinées à identifier les stimulus qui attirent les altises et les incitent à se nourrir.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1998

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.)

References

Anderson, M.D., Peng, C., and Weiss, M.J.. 1992. Crambe, Crambe abyssinica Hochst., as a flea beetle resistant crop (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 85: 594600.Google Scholar
Brandt, R.N., and Lamb, R.J.. 1993. Distribution of feeding damage by Phyllotreta cruciferae (Goeze) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on oilseed rape and mustard seedlings in relation to crop resistance. The Canadian Entomologist 125: 10111021.Google Scholar
Bodnaryk, R.P. 1992. Distinctive leaf feeding patterns on oilseed rapes and related Brassicaceae by flea beetles, Phyllotreta cruciferae (Goeze) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Canadian Journal of Plant Science 72: 575581.Google Scholar
Bodnaryk, R.P., and Lamb, R.J.. 1991. Mechanisms of resistance to the flea beetle, Phyllotreta cruciferae (Goeze), in mustard seedlings, Sinapis alba L. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 71: 1320.Google Scholar
Budin, J.T., Breene, W.M., and Putnam, D.H.. 1995. Some compositional properties of camelina (Camelina sativa L. Crantz) seeds and oils. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society 72: 309315.Google Scholar
Feeny, P., Paauwe, K.L., and Demong, N.J.. 1970. Flea beetles and mustard oils: host plant specificity of Phyllotreta cruciferae and P. striolata adults (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 63: 832841.Google Scholar
Lamb, R.J., and Turnock, W.J.. 1982. Economics of insecticidal control of flea beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) attacking rape in Canada. The Canadian Entomologist 114: 827840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, R.J., Palaniswamy, P., Pivnick, K.A., and Smith, M.A.H.. 1993. A selection of oilseed rape, Brassica rapa L., with resistance to flea beetles, Phyllotreta curciferae (Goeze) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). The Canadian Entomologist 125: 703713.Google Scholar
Meisner, J., and Mitchell, B.K.. 1983. Phagodeterrency induced by two cruciferous plants in adults of the flea beetle Phyllotreta striolata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). The Canadian Entomologist 115: 12091214.Google Scholar
Palaniswamy, P., and Bodnaryk, R.P.. 1994. A wild Brassica from Sicily provides trichome-based resistance against flea beetles, Phyllotreta cruciferae (Goeze) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). The Canadian Entomologist 126: 11191130.Google Scholar
Palaniswamy, P., and Lamb, R.J.. 1992. Host preferences of the flea beetles, Phyllotreta cruciferae and P. striolata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) for crucifer seedlings. Journal of Economic Entomology 85: 743752.Google Scholar
Palaniswamy, P., Lamb, R.J., and McVetty, P.B.E.. 1992. Screening for antixenosis resistance to flea beetles, Phyllotreta cruciferae (Goeze) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), in rapeseed and related crucifers. The Canadian Entomologist 124: 895906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. 1990. SAS/STAT user's guide, version 6 edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Weiss, M.J., McLeod, P., Schatz, B.G., and Hanson, B.K.. 1991. Potential for insecticidal management of flea beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on canola. Journal of Economic Entomology 84: 15971603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar