Amer J of Potato Res (2007) 84:259-269
259
Resistance to Green Peach Aphid, Myzus persicae (Sulzer), and Potato Aphid, Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas), in Potato Cultivars J e f f r e y A. Davis*, E d w a r d B. R a d c l i f f e a n d D a v i d W. R a g s d a l e Department of Entomology,University of Minnesota, 219 Hodson Hall, 1980 FolweUAve., St. Paul, MN 55108, USA *Corresponding author: Tel: 612-624-2751;Fax: 612-625-5299;Email:
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
( r e s i s t a n t ) , w h e r e a s o n Red La Soda ( s u s c e p t i b l e ) popu l a t i o u s would r e a c h o v e r 54,000. With n o n - p e r s i s t e n t
P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h suggests t h a t e x t a n t p o t a t o culti-
foliar insecticides as t h e o n l y control, p o p u l a t i o n mod-
v a r s offer l i t t l e p r o m i s e as s o u r c e s o f u s e f u l aphid resis-
els i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h r e e a p p l i c a t i o n s w o u l d be n e c e s s a r y
t a n c e . However, few p r i o r
studies have critically
to m a i n t a i n g r e e n p e a c h aphid below t h e M i n n e s o t a rec-
m e a s u r e d t h e effects o f h o s t c u l t i v a r o n aphid age-
o m m e n d e d a c t i o n t h r e s h o l d o n Red La Soda for 21 days,
d e p e n d e n t life t a b l e s t a t i s t i c s or r e l a t e d t h e s e m e a s u r e s
while j u s t one a p p l i c a t i o n w o u l d be n e e d e d for g r e e n
t o field p e r f o r m a n c e . T h e r e f o r e , a c o m p r e h e n s i v e field
peach aphid o n R u s s e t Norkotah. I n c o m b i n a t i o n with
a n d g r e e n h o u s e s t u d y was u n d e r t a k e n to assess 49 com-
biological c o n t r o l o r i n s e c t i c i d e use, this r e s i s t a n c e
m e r c i a l p o t a t o cultivars, p r i m a r i l y of N o r t h A m e r i c a n
could provide s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r o l while r e d u c i n g the
origin, for r e s i s t a n c e to g r e e n peach aphid, M y z u s per-
r e l i a n c e o n pesticides.
sicae ( S u l z e r ) , a n d p o t a t o aphid, Macrosiphum euphorbiae
(Thomas).
Cultivars
were
found
to
show
RESUMEN
c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e s i s t a n c e s t o each aphid species, b u t t h e s e r e s i s t a n c e s were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y cor-
I n v e s t i g a c i o n e s p r e v i a s s u g i e r e n que los c u l t i v a t e s
r e l a t e d (Re=0.032). I n g r e e n h o u s e life t a b l e studies, the
e x i s t e n t e s o f r e c e n m u y pocas posibilidades como f u e n t e
i n t r i n s i c r a t e o f i n c r e a s e (rm) o f g r e e n peach aphid was
dtil de r e s i s t e n c i a a los fifidos. Sin embargo, pocos estu-
l o w e s t (0.167) o n cv R u s s e t N o r k o t a h a n d h i g h e s t
dins previos hall m e d i d o critica y e s t a d l s t i c a m e n t e los
(0.350) o n cv Red La Soda. P o t a t o aphid rm was l o w e s t
efectos del c u l t i v a r h o s p e d a n t e sobre la edad del Afido o
(0.122) o n cv A r a c y a n d highest (0.229) o n cv I r i s h Cob-
hart r e l a c i o n a d o e s t a s m e d i d a s con el c o m p o r t a m i e n t o
bler. A m o n g cultivars, y e a r of r e l e a s e , m a t u r i t y class a n d
e n el campo. Por c o n s i g u i e n t e , se r e a l i z a r o n e s t u d i o s
yield p o t e n t i a l did n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f l u e n c e n u m b e r of
d e t a l l a d o s de i n v e r n a d e r o y campo p a r a p r o b a r 49 culti-
p r o g e n y p e r f e m a l e p e r day for e i t h e r g r e e n p e a c h aphid
v a r e s de papa, p r i n c i p a l m e n t e de origen n o r t e a m e r i c a n o
or p o t a t o aphid (P=0.987 a n d 0.954, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . I n
p a r a r e s i s t e n c i a al ~ i d o v e r d e del m e l o c o t 6 n , Myzus
field t r i a l s (2004 a n d 2005), yield p o t e n t i a l was signifi-
persicae ( S u l z e r ) y al ~ i d o de la p a p a Macrosiphum
cantly correlated with green peach aphid counts,
euphorbiae ( T h o m a s ) . Los c u l t i v a r e s m o s t r a r o n consid-
(P--0.006 a n d o,~
I
I
Red Pontiac Inca Gold Pink Pcart Denali R cda K in~E dward Goldrush Epicure L oman German Butterball Princess L araette Grccn Mountain Rose G old Red Thumb Red Warba R Pkmperne,1 usset D uroanK Chieftain Russet Norkotah Augsber ~ G old Nll Rea Car ola Sto Amor Earlv Ohio Bannoek Russet Summit Russet Yukon G old R ubyC r escent "New Leaf Red La Soda Atlantic All Blue . J Sebago, Dark ltoa t~oriana Caribe ,T r lumph tJ oL%;~ugget t. ascaoe Ivory .C r isp A lturas Kennebec Irish Cobbler
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
0.100
I I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
!
I I
Vol. 84
I
I
I _.
I
_.
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I.
I I
I I
I
I I I
I
I
I
I
I l
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I.---I
I I
I
I I
I I
0.150
I
I
0.200
I
I I I
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
Intrinsic rate of increase (rm) FIGURE 2. P o t a t o aphid intrinsic r a t e o f increase (rm) • standard error (se) on 49 cultivars.
of days, K the n u m b e r of aphids d e v o u r e d per day, and as the
w e r e distributed randomly throughout the plot. All plots
aphid population after n days. The value for K was set at 15.2
r e c e i v e d a weekly application of both chlorothalonil (Syngenta
following similar values found by Goodarzy and Davis (1958)
Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC) at a rate of 2.3 L/ha to con-
and Tamald et al. (1974) for predators on aphids in alfalfa and
trol late blight, P. infestans, and carbaryl (Bayer CropScience,
potato, respectively. A list of predators occurring in potato
Research Triangle Park, NC) at 4.7 L/ha to control potato
fields can be found in Tamaki et al. (1974).
leafhopper, Empoasca fabae (-Harris), and flare aphids, start-
2 0 0 4 a n d 2 0 0 5 F i e l d Trials
beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say), two applications
ing 10 July 2004 and 7 July 2005. To control Colorado potato Cultivars w e r e evaluated for field resistance to green
w e r e m a d e of spinosad (Dow AgroSciences LLC, Indianapolis,
p e a c h aphid at UMORE Park with 29 s c r e e n e d in 2004 and 40
IN) at 0.3 L/ha. To m e a s u r e aphid resistance in cultivars grown
in 2005. Potato aphid n u m b e r s w e r e low both years and there-
u n d e r field conditions, the n u m b e r of green peach aphids per
fore w e r e not sampled. Potatoes w e r e planted 28 May in 2004
plant found in 30 sec were counted on 12 August 2004 and 8
and 23 May in 2005. E a c h year, plantings were in a single block,
August 2005 following procedures of Radcliffe and Lauer
four rows wide, 130 m long, with 0.9 m b e t w e e n rows and 0.3
(1966). This timed-sample technique allows for rapid evalua-
m b e t w e e n plants. On either side of these plots, two infector
tion of a large n u m b e r of plants which may differ in leaf area,
rows (tubers with m i x e d infections of PVY and PLRV) were
unlike single leaf counts, c o m m o n l y u s e d in e c o n o m i c thresh-
planted. Four hill treatments, one cultivar to each treatment,
olds, which may be s k e w e d due to unequal leaf shape, espe-
2007
TABLE 1 - - G r e e n Cultivar All Blue All Red Alturas Aracy Atlantic Augsberg Gold Bannock Russet Caribe Carola Cascade Chieftain Dark Red Norland Denali Early Ohio Epicttre Gem Russet German Butterball Gold Nugget Goldrush Green Mt Inca Gold Irish Cobbler Ivory Crisp Katahdin Kennebec King Edward Loman NewLeaf (RB) Pimpernel Pink Pearl Princess Laraette Red La Soda Red Pontiac Red Thumb Red Warba Reda Rose Gold Ruby Crescent Russet Burbank Russet Norkotah Sebago Shepody Sieglinde Snowdrift Sto Amor Summit Russet Triumph Yellow Finn Yukon Gold
DAVIS e t al.: A P H I D - R E S I S T A N T POTATO CULTIVARS
peach aphid life table parameters. n~ 14 12 16 5 19 14 6 5 18 48 53 9 26 8 5 12 14 5 7 5 8 5 10 15 19 10 5 20 17 19 11 7 11 18 17 4 11 10 10 38 8 24 7 7 10 9 6 9 20
263
Two w e e k s after vine kill, t u b e r s
DTAb
se
Ro
DT
k
area (mine)h
se
8.07 a-c 7.50 bc 7.20 bc 8.80 ab 8.32 a-c 8.43 a-c 7.50 bc 7.00 bc 9.28 ab 8.28 a-c 7.67 bc 6.33 bc 8.08 a-c 8.63 ab 8.40 a-c 7.75 bc 8.71 ab 7.40 bc 7.43 bc 9.00 ab 7.63 bc 7.60 bc 8.10 bc 7.67 bc 8.26 a-c 7.50 bc 8.20 a-c 8.25 a-c 7.35 be 7.63 bc 7.18 bc 6.43 bc 7.00 bc 7.67 bc 8.44 a-c 11.00 a 8.36 a-c 6.80 bc 7.60 bc 8.18 a-c 7.00 bc 8.13 a-c 8.29 a-c 6.86 bc 7.60 bc 8.56 ab 5.50 c 6.89 bc 8.50 a-c
0.05 0.10 0.17 0.22 0.05 0.07 0.17 0.01 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.46 0.20 0.09 0.33 0.25 0.47 0.21 0.18 0.07 0.11 0.05 0.16 0.55 0.04 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.08 0.17 0.07 0.12 0.47 0.18 0.13 0.08 0.06 0.13 0.07 0.36 0.15 0.10 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.08
11.21 16.92 21.13 12.00 17.05 15.29 17.00 20.60 15.83 16.77 16.85 12.11 11.37 13.75 8.20 10.42 15.41 10.60 20.14 9.40 16.00 14.00 10.70 18.60 18.47 17.20 16.00 12.40 13.18 13.01 14.27 22.14 9.82 16.39 10.43 10.50 11.27 11.20 12.80 5.34 19.00 11.38 9.85 18.71 6.90 12.22 13.00 6.67 16.95
3.18 2.72 2.26 3.18 2.81 3.03 2.52 2.49 3.24 2.85 2.69 2.75 3.03 2.95 3.54 3.08 3.04 3.05 2.49 3.52 2.62 2.85 3.35 2.27 2.58 2.48 2.58 3.01 2.71 2.71 2.62 1.98 2.89 2.84 3.09 4.03 3.14 2.96 2.85 4.15 2.37 2.82 3.35 2.30 3.48 3.08 2.25 3.45 2.75
1.24 1.29 1.36 1.24 1.28 1.26 1.32 1.32 1.24 1.28 1.29 1.29 1.26 1.26 1.22 1.25 1.26 1.25 1.32 1.22 1.30 1.28 1.23 1.36 1.31 1.32 1.31 1.26 1.29 1.29 1.30 1.42 1.27 1.28 1.25 1.19 1.25 1.26 1.28 1.18 1.34 1.28 1.23 1.35 1.22 1.25 1.36 1.22 1.29
1.11 a-d 1.07 a-d 1.12 a-d 0.52 a 1.02 a-d 0.82 a-d 1.01 a-d 1.2 a-c 0.91 a-d 1.19 a-c 1.02 a-d 0.91 a-d 0.90 a-d 1.15 a-c 0.95 a-d 0.73 cd 0.90 a-d 0.93 a-d 0.94 a-d 1.04 a-d 0.79 b-d 0.97 a-d 1.08 a-d 1.19 a-c 1.12 a-d 0.68 cd 0.8 b-d 1.02 a-d 0.88 a-d 0.79 b-d 0.82 a-d 1.43 a 1.10 a-d 0.97 a-d 0.99 a-d 1.38 ab 1.I1 a-d 1.20 a-c 0.98 a-d 0.95 a-d 0.86 a-d 1.04 a-d 0.70 cd 0.82 a-d 1.15 a-c 1.28 a-c 1.17 a-c 0.67 cd 1.07 a-d
0.03 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.02 0,12 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.02 0.01
Days to reproductive adult (DTA), net reproductive rate (R0), doubling time (DT), finite rate of increase 0~)aTotal number of aphids tested per cultivar. bMeans followed by same letter within columns are not sigmilicantly different (P>0.05; REGWQ).
w e r e h a n d dug, p l a c e d into m e s h bags, labeled a n d stored.
Data Analysis Standard errors for r~ and 95% CI were c a l c u l a t e d using t h e J a c k n i f e p r o c e d u r e d e s c r i b e d by M e y e r et al. (1986). Analysis of variance
(ANOVA)
was
con-
d u c t e d to analyze differences in 30 s e c counts, a p h i d b o d y size (-length x width m e a s u r e m e n t s ) , a n d days to a d u l t u s i n g PROC GLM (SAS 2001). Time c o u n t s w e r e t e s t e d for h o m o g e n e i t y of variance and transformation was not needed.
The
Ryan-Einot-
Gabriel-Welsch Multiple Range Test (REGWQ) w a s u s e d to separate means,
a
= 0.05 (SAS
2001). P e a r s o n ' s c o r r e l a t i o n w a s u s e d to c o m p a r e r ~ of g r e e n peach
a p h i d t o rm o f p o t a t o
a p h i d for e a c h cultivar, g r e e n p e a c h aphid rm t o g r e e n p e a c h a p h i d area, a n d p o t a t o a p h i d r ~ t o p o t a t o a p h i d area. S p e a r m a n ' s r a n k c o r r e l a t i o n coefficient w a s used
to test correspondence
between
30 s e c g r e e n p e a c h
a p h i d c o u n t s (field data) a n d g r e e n p e a c h a p h i d total progeny p r o d u c e d in 10 days (greenhouse data) 1989).
(Snedecor and Cochran Multinomial
loglinear
regression w a s c o n d u c t e d using t h e statistical p r o g r a m R (R 2004) a n d w a s u s e d to c o m p a r e effects o f maturity date, yield potential, a n d year of cultivar release (comp a r i n g cultivars r e l e a s e d p r i o r
cially in wild p o t a t o species. P l a n t s w e r e vine killed 28 A u g u s t
a n d post introduction of m o d e m synthetic pesticides) o n a p h i d
in 2004 a n d 29 August in 2005 b y a p p l i c a t i o n of diquat dibro-
resistance as m e a s u r e d by 30 sec aphid c o u n t s (field data) or
m i d e ( S y n g e n t a Crop Protection, G r e e n s b o r o , NC), at 2.3 L/ha.
total fecundity in 10 days ( g r e e n h o u s e data). Maturity categories
264
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POTATO RESEARCH
Vol. 84
4000 -4--
Red La Soda w/out predation
= 9 = Red La Soda w/predation
3500
- - D - - - R. N o r k o t a h w / o u t p r e d a t i o n - []"
3000
R. N o r k o t a h w / p r e d a t i o n
~.2500 52000 N 15oo ..l[ ~ " ~ ~176 ~ ~
lOOO 500 0
L - - - ~_r - -" - u . . . .
0
[] .
.
.
.
[] . . . .
i
I
l
I
2
4
6
8
D- - 9
10
Days FIGURE 3. Effects o f host plant and predation on green peach aphid population dynamics. A: Red La Soda, B: Red La Soda w/predation, C: Russet Norkotah, and D: Russet Norkotah w/predation.
were 65 to 70 days, 70 to 90 days, 90 to 110 days, 110 to 130 days,
(Figure 2). Intrinsic rate of increase values for green peach
and > 130 days. Yield potential categories were low, medium, and
aphid and potato aphid among cultivars were not significantly
high. Data were taken from published online cultivar descrip-
correlated (/?2=0.032). For example, Russet Norkotah had the
tions (Hutten and van Berloo, http'J/www.dpw.wau.nl/pv/query.asp;
lowest green peach aphid rm but was intermediate for potato
PAA, http://www.umaine.edu/paa/var.htm). The likelihood ratio
aphid. Across all cultivars, mean green peach aphid r m w a s
test (LRT) was used to test for significance (R 2004).
0.245 and mean potato aphid r,, was 0.170. Green peach aphid had a shorter pre~reproductive period and higher rm than did
RESULTS
potato aphid. Green peach aphid differed significantly in days to repro-
Results indicated that green peach aphid intrinsic rate of
ductive adult (DTA) (P0.05; REGWQ).
o f 3.2 progeny. G r e e n p e a c h a p h i d area (width x length) diff e r e d significantly (P