Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T19:56:57.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula) Genotype Affects Gall Midge (Spurgia esulae) Establishment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Rodney G. Lym ,
Scott J. Nissen ,
Martha L. Rowe ,
Donald J. Lee  and
Robert A. Masters
Rodney G. Lym
Affiliation:
Plant Sciences Dep., North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5051
Scott J. Nissen
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric, Agric Res. Ser, Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Martha L. Rowe
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric, Agric Res. Ser, Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Donald J. Lee
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric, Agric Res. Ser, Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Robert A. Masters
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric, Agric Res. Ser, Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse cage studies were conducted to determine the influence of shoot morphology and genetic variation on establishment of Spurgia esulae gall midge on seven leafy spurge genotypes. The genotypes were collected from South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Wyoming, Manitoba, and Austria. Genotypes from South Dakota and Nebraska were most susceptible to gall formation and had the highest larvae survival, while the genotypes from Montana and Manitoba were most resistant. Morphological characteristics of the leafy spurge stem tips, such as stem diameter, leaf length, width, and area did not correlate with gall formation or larvae survival. Chloroplast DNA restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of the genotypes identified six chloroplast types among the seven leafy spurge genotypes. The two genotypes most resistant to galling by S. esulae, Manitoba and Montana, had the same chloroplast genotype, but also were closely related to the two most susceptible genotypes. Because eggs were laid on all genotypes, it appears that adult females were not preferentially selecting appropriate host genotypes, but that egg and larvae survival was strongly influenced by genotype.

Keywords

Leafy spurge gall midge, Spurgia esulae Gagnéleafy spurge, Euphorbia esula L. ♯ EPHESBiological controlrangcland weed controlcpDNARFLPgenetic markersEPHES
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 629 - 633
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by the Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

1. Barrett, S.C.B. 1982. Genetic variation in weeds. Pages 73–98 in Charudattan, R. and Walker, H. L., eds. Biological Control of Weeds With Plant Pathogens, John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
2. Belcher, J. W. and Wilson, S. D. 1989. Leafy spurge and the species composition of a mixed-grass prairie. J. Range Manage. 42: 172–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Burdon, J. J. and Marshall, D. R. 1981. Biological control and the reproductive mode of weeds. J. Appl. Ecol. 18: 649–658.Google Scholar
4. Dice, L. R. 1945. Measurements of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecol. 26: 297–302.Google Scholar
5. Evans, J. O., Torell, J. M., Valcaru, R. V., and Smith, G. G. 1991. Analytical pyrolysis-pattern recognition for the characterization of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) biotypes. Ann. Applied Bio. 119: 47–58.Google Scholar
6. Feinberg, A. P. and Vogelstein, B. 1983. A technique for radiolabelling DNA restriction endonuclease fragments with high specific activity. Anal. Biochem. 132: 6–13.Google Scholar
7. Huffaker, C. B. 1974. Fundamentals of biological weed control. Pages 631–649 in DeBach, P., ed. Biological Control of Insects, Pests and Weeds. Chapman and Hall Limited. London.Google Scholar
8. Lym, R. G. 1992. Propagation of Euphorbia esula for leafy spurge biocontrol agents. Weed Sci. 40: 326–332.Google Scholar
9. Manners, G. D. and Davis, D. G. 1984. Epicuticular wax constituents of North American and European Euphorbia esula biotypes. Phytochem. 23: 1059–1062.Google Scholar
10. Messersmith, C. G. and Lym, R. G. 1990. Leafy spurge control: 10 years of research enhancement. North Dakota Farm Res. 47(6): 3–6.Google Scholar
11. Nelson, J. 1994. The gall midge Spurgia esulae, on leafy spurge. , North Dakota State University, Fargo 58105.Google Scholar
12. Nei, M. and Li, W. 1979. Mathematical model for studying genetic variation in terms of restriction endonucleases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 76: 5269–5273.Google Scholar
13. Nissen, S. J., Masters, R. A., Lee, D. J., and Rowe, M. L. 1992. Comparisons of restriction fragment length polymorphisms in chloroplast DNA of five leafy spurge (Euphorbia spp.) accessions. Weed Sci. 40: 63–67.Google Scholar
14. Nissen, S. J., Masters, R. A., Lee, D. J., and Rowe, M. L. 1995. DNA based marker systems to determine genetic diversity of weedy species and their application to biocontrol. Weed Sci. 43: 504–513.Google Scholar
15. Palmer, J. D., Osorio, B., and Thompson, W. F. 1988. Evolutionary significance of inversions in legume chloroplast DNAs. Current Genetics 14: 65–74.Google Scholar
16. Palmer, J. D. and Thompson, W. F. 1981. Clone banks for mung bean, pea and spinach chloroplast genomes. Gene 15: 21–26.Google Scholar
17. Pecora, P., Pemberton, R. W., Stazi, M., and Johnson, G. R. 1991. Host specificity of Spurgia esulae Gagné (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), a gall midge introduced into the United States for control of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L. “complex”). Environ. Entomol. 20: 282–287.Google Scholar
18. Saghai-Maroof, M. A., Solimam, K. M., Jorgensen, R. A., and Allard, R. W. 1984. Ribosomal DNA spacer-length polymorphisms in barley: Mendelian inheritance, chromosomal location, and population dynamics. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 81: 8014–8018.Google Scholar
19. Sheppard, A. W. 1992. Predicting biological weed control. Trends Ecol. Evol. 7: 290–290.Google Scholar
20. Southern, E. M. 1975. Detection of specific sequences among DNA fragments separated by gel electrophoresis. J. Mol. Biol. 98: 503–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Statistical Analysis System Institute. 1990. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Cary, NC 27512.Google Scholar