Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-ds8n5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-08-18T05:43:53.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of the leaf curling plum aphid (Brachycaudus helichrysi) on stem diameter, seed yield, and their relationship, in sunflower

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. Lerin  and
I. Badenhausser
J. Lerin
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Centre de Poitou-Charentes, Laboratoire de Zoologie, 86600 Lusignan, France
I. Badenhausser
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Centre de Poitou-Charentes, Laboratoire de Zoologie, 86600 Lusignan, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The leaf-curling plum aphid (Brachycaudus helichrysi Kalt.) is one of the main pests of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) in Europe. Yield losses were assessed in open field conditions and natural infestations over a 3-year period in Central West France. Plant variability and the choice of the more vigorous plants by aphids in open field conditions were two factors interfering with the experiments. To improve their sensitivity and to correct for biases without expanding the experimental design, an analysis of covariance was the best compromise. Field and cage experiments were conducted between 1985 and 1989 to assess the influence of aphids on the relationship between stem diameter at harvest and seed yield. As an indicator of plant vigour (size and yield), stem diameter at harvest was the best choice, as neither its relationship with seed yield nor its mean value was affected by aphid infestation. It was then used as a covariate to study yield losses. Aphid populations were quantified weekly from the beginning to the end of the infestations according to the leaf-curling symptom and to the number of aphids per plant. Multivariate analyses followed by cluster analysis identified groups of plants displaying similar infestation dynamics. It was found that when aphid populations reached > 100 per plant at the budding stage, yield losses occurred. When populations were < 100 aphids per plant at the budding stage and then decreased, no yield loss was observed. This gives growers ample time to monitor populations and treat crops.

Information

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 125 , Issue 2 , October 1995 , pp. 211 - 221
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Badenhausser, I. (1993). Etude de la répartition du puceron Brachycaudus helichrysi Kalt. à l' échelle de la parcelle et de la plante de tournesol Helianthus annuus L. Apports pour l' échantillonnage Thèse, Université de Rennes.Google Scholar
Badenhausser, I. & Lerin, J. (1987). Etude des pertes de rendement du tournesol dues à Brachycaudus helichrysi Kalt. In Conférence Internationale sur les Ravageurs en Agriculture, Volume 2, pp. 417–424. Paris: Association Nationale de Protection des Plantes.Google Scholar
Badenhausser, I., Lerin, J. & Bournoville, R. (1988 a). Studies on yield losses caused by two sucking pests of sunflower in France: Brachycaudus helichrysi and Lygus spp. In Proceedings of the 12th International Sunflower Conference, Volume2, pp. 158–163. Novi Sad, Yugoslavia: Yugoslav Association of Producers of Plant Oil and Fats.Google Scholar
Badenhausser, I., Lerin, J. & Ronssin, S. (1988 b). Echelle de notation de la crispation du feuillage du tournesol due à Brachycaudus helichrysiKalt. Informations Techniques CETIOM 105, 9–14.Google Scholar
Badenhausser, I., Bournoville, R., Cantot, P., Rivault, E. & Giraud, E. (1991). Action du puceron Acyrthosiphon pisum Harris (Homoptera: Aphididae) sur les facteurs de production du pois protéagineux de printemps, en phase de floraison. Journal of Applied Entomology 111, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchery, Y. & Jacky, F. (1977). Détermination de la période de l'attaque d' Aphis fabae Scop. (Homoptera, Aphididae) la plus dommageable pour la féverole de printemps Vicia faba L. Stimulation des synthèses de la plante par le puceron. Comptes Rendus des Séances de l' Académie d' Agriculture de France, 349–362.Google Scholar
Bujaki, G. (1984). Study of aphid damage on sunflower plants in many regions of Hungary in the period 1979–1984. Növénytermelés 20, 533–540.Google Scholar
Cadeac, F. (1988). Corrélation entre le diamètre de la tige et la production d'akènes chez le tournesol. In Proceedings of the 12th International Sunflower Conference, Volume 1, pp. 198–202. Novi Sad, Yugoslavia: Yugoslav Association of Producers of Plant Oil and Fats.Google Scholar
Camprag, D. (1976). Leaf aphids (Aphididae, Homoptera) an important problem in sunflower growing in north-east Yugoslavia. In Proceedings of the 7th International Sunflower Conference, Volume 2, pp. 260–265. Krasnodar, USSR: Research Institute of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Camprag, D., Sekulic, R., Thalji, R., Keresi, T. & Almasi, R. (1988). Studies of the occurrence and harmfulness of aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) on sunflower. In Proceedings of the I2th International Sunflower Conference, Volume 2, pp. 170–171. Novi Sad, Yugoslavia: Yugoslav Association of Producers of Plant Oil and Fats.Google Scholar
Cole, J. W. L. & Grizzle, J. E. (1966). Applications of multivariate analysis of variance to repeated measurements experiments. Biometrics 22, 810–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dagnélie, P. (1975). L'analyse de la covariance. In Théorie et Méthodes Statistiques. Volume 2, pp. 341–353. Presses Agronomiques de Gembloux.Google Scholar
Diday, E., Lemaire, J., Pouget, J. & Testu, F. (1982). Eléments d'analyse de données, p. 464. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
Hariot, J. (1990). Pucerons du tournesol: quelle stratégie? Phytoma 417, 29–30.Google Scholar
Hand, L. F. & Keaster, A. J. (1967). The environment of an insect field cage. Journal of Economic Entomology 60, 910–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, V. P., Toscano, N. C., Marshall, W. J., Welter, S. W. & Youngman, R. R. (1986). Pesticide effects on plant physiology: integration into a pest management program. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 32, 103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koubaiti, K. & Lerin, J. (1992). Fecundity and egg laying dynamics of Baris coerulescens on oilseed rape: effects of cultivar and plant size in controlled conditions. Journal of Applied Entomology 114, 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebart, L. & Morineau, A. (1985). SPAD, Système portable pour l'analyse des données. Paris: CESIA.Google Scholar
Lee, G., Stevens, D. J., Stokes, S. & Wratten, S. D. (1981 a). Duration of cereal aphid populations and the effects on wheat yield and breadmaking quality. Annals of Applied Biology 98, 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, G., Wratten, S. D. & Kenyi, K. B. L. (1981 b). The effects of growth stage in cereals on yield reductions caused by aphids. In Proceedings of the 1981 British Crop Protection Conference — Pests and Diseases, Vol. 2, pp. 449–456. Croydon: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Lerin, J. (1982). Estimation de l'action du charancon des siliques (Ceuthorrhynchus assimilisPayk.) sur la productivité du colza d'hiver. I. Aspects methodologiques. Agronomie 2, 1005–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerin, J. (1984). Estimation de faction du charanxcon des siliques (Ceuthorrhynchus assimilisPayk.) sur la productivité du colza d'hiver. II. Evaluation des pertes dans des experiences en cages. Agronomie 4, 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerin, J. (1988). Pertes de rendement associées à deux ravageurs successifs (Ceuthorrhynchus napiGyll. et Meligethes aeneusF.) sur le colza d'hiver (variété Bienvenu). Agronomie 8, 251–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrien, A., Blanchet, R. & Gelfi, N. (1981). Relationships between water supply, leaf area development and survival, and production in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Agronomie 1, 917–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedigo, L. P., Hutchins, S. H. & Higley, L. G. (1986). Economic injury levels in theory and practice. Annual Review of Entomology 31, 341–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouzet, A. & Bugat, F. (1985). Description d'une methode simple et rapide pour l'estimation de la surface foliaire par plante chez le tournesol. In Proceedings of the 11th International Sunflower Conference, pp. 21–23. Mar del Plata, Argentina: Asociacion Argentina de Girasol.Google Scholar
Rautapaa, J. (1966). The effect of the English grain aphid Macrosiphum avenaeF. (Horn., Aphididae) on the yield and quality of wheat. Annales Agriculturae Fenniae 5, 334–341.Google Scholar
Robinson, R G. (1978). Production and culture. In Sunflower Science and Technology (Ed. Carter, J. F.), pp. 89–143. Wisconsin: The American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Ruppel, R. F. (1983). Cumulative insect-days as an index of crop protection. Journal of Economic Entomology 76, 375–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute (1987). SAS/STAT Guide for Personal Computers, Version 6 Edition. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Schmelzer, K. (1970). The cause of curly mosaic in sunflowers. Nachrichtenblatt des Deutschen Pflanzenschutzdienstes 24, 1–5.Google Scholar
Soroka, J. J. & Mackay, P. A. (1990). Seasonal occurrence of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum Harris (Homoptera: Aphididae), on cultivars of field peas in Manitoba and its effects on pea growth and yield. Canadian Entomologist 122, 503–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, A. D., Vickerman, G. P. & Wratten, S. D. (1984). The effect of the grain aphid, Sitobion avenae (F.), on winter wheat in England: an analysis of the economics of control practice and forecasting systems. Crop Protection 3, 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellings, P. W., Ward, S. A., Dixon, A. F. G. & Rabbinge, R. (1989). Crop loss assessment. In Aphids, their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control, Volume 2C (Eds Minks, A. K. & Harrewijn, P.), pp. 49–64. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar