Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T21:06:47.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surveys of sugar-beet seed crops, mangold clamps and weedsin England for aphids and viruses, 1963–73

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. D. Heathcote  and
W. J. Byford
G. D. Heathcote
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
W. J. Byford
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The annual patterns of infestation of sugar-beet root and seed crops by green aphids (Myzus persicae) and by black aphids (Aphis fabae) were similar, paralleling population changes shown by catches on sticky traps in southern England, but the incidence of yellows in root crops was not correlated with incidence in seed crops in the same year. Few green aphids overwintered on beet-seed plants and the incidence of yellows was consistently low in the main seed-growing areas where all the stecklings are raised under cereal cover crops. Elsewhere, yellows sometimes spread in the autumn and many green aphids occasionally overwintered. Black aphids were seldom prevalent; the severity of attack correlated with the number of eggs laid on spindle (Euonymus europaeus) during the previous autumn.

Twenty-two per cent of mangold clamps checked in mid-April contained aphids, but only about 5 % contained M. persicae. Seventeen per cent of the infested clamps contained aphids infective with BMYV and 10% contained aphids infective with BYV. However, the acreage of mangolds grown in England has decreased.

Myzus ascalonicus overwintered on weeds more often than M. persicae or other species likely to act as vectors of viruses affecting sugar beet. Forty per cent of samples of some common weeds collected from sheltered sites during mid-April from 1963 to 1973 were infested with aphids, and those on chickweed (Stellaria media), groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) and shepherd's purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris) were commonly infective with yellowing viruses. Weeds are probably a major source of yellowing viruses in southern England.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 84 , Issue 1 , February 1975 , pp. 87 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

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

REFERENCES

Anon. (1972). Agricultural Statistics 1970/71 England and Wales, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Bray, W. E. (1970). Chemical weed control. Agricultural Development Association Course, Riseholme, 15–1702 1970.Google Scholar
Byford, W. J. & Hull, R. (1967). Some observations on the economic importance of sugar-beet downy mildew in England. Annals of Applied Biology 60, 281–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, R. A. (1963). Mangold clamps and aphid numbers. British Sugar Beet Review 31, 133–4.Google Scholar
Dunning, R. A. (1966). Mangold clamps, aphids and virus yellows. British Sugar Beet Review 34, 124–6.Google Scholar
Engsbro, B. (1970). Virusgulsot hos bederoer. III. Tidsskrift för Planteavl 74, 243–63.Google Scholar
Heathcote, G. D. (1967). The overwintering of aphids and viruses on sugar beet seed crops in England, 1963–1966. Plant Pathology 16, 126–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heathcote, G. D. (1968). The use of menazon seed dressing to decrease spread of virus yellows in sugarbeet root crops. Annals of Applied Biology 62, 113–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heathcote, G. D. (1971). Mangold clamps and virus yellows. British Sugar Beet Review 39, 173–4.Google Scholar
Heathcote, G. D. (1974). The effect of spacing, nitrogen fertilizer and irrigation on the appearance of symptoms and spread of virus yellows in sugar-beet crops. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heathcote, G. D. & Cockbain, A. J. (1966). Aphids from mangold clamps and their importance as vectors of beet viruses. Annals of Applied Biology 57, 321–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heathcote, G. D., Dunning, R. A. & Wolfe, M. D. (1965). Aphids on sugar beet and some weeds in England, and notes on weeds as a source of beet viruses. Plant Pathology, 14, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, R. (1954). Control of yellows in sugar beet seed crops in Great Britain. Agriculture 61, 205–10.Google Scholar
Hull, R. (1955). Mangold clamps and sugar beet growers. British Sugar Beet Review 23, 123–4.Google Scholar
Jones, F. G. W. & Dunning, R. A. (1969). Sugar Beet Pests. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Bulletin162.Google Scholar
Longden, P. C. & Scott, R. K. (1973). Growing sugar beet for seed in England. ADAS Quarterly Review 9, 10–23.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. (1968). The changing population of viable weed seeds in an arable soil. Weed Research 8, 253–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, G. E. (1962). Sugar beet mild yellowing virus: a persistent aphid-transmitted virus. Nature, London 195, 1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, G. E. (1965). The host range of some English isolates of beet yellowing viruses. Annals of Applied Biology 55, 245–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, G. E. (1968). The distribution of sugar beet yellowing viruses in East Anglia from 1965 to 1968. British Sugar Beet Review 37, 77–84.Google Scholar
Ŝutić, D., Jonĉić, M. & Djordjevic, R. (1959). Über den Einfluss des Gelbsuchtvirus auf den Samenertrag und die Samengüte der Beta-Rübe. Zeitschrift fur Pflanzenkrankheiten 66, 681–4.Google Scholar
Watson, M. A. (1966). The relation of annual incidence of beet yellowing viruses in sugar beet to variations in weather. Plant Pathology 15, 145–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Way, M. J. & Heathcote, G. D. (1966). Interactions of crop density of field beans, abundance of Aphis fabae Scop., virus incidence and aphid control by chemicals. Annals of Applied Biology 57, 409–23.Google Scholar