Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T14:23:27.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EFFECTS OF ACUTE SIMULATED AND ACUTE GRASSHOPPER (ORTHOPTERA: ACRIDIDAE) DAMAGE ON GROWTH RATES AND YIELD OF SPRING WHEAT (TRITICUM AESTIVUM)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

O. O. Olfert  and
M. K. Mukerji
O. O. Olfert
Affiliation:
Research Station, Agriculture Canada, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 0X2
M. K. Mukerji
Affiliation:
Research Station, Agriculture Canada, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 0X2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies showed that the type of damage, the timing of damage with the phenological stage of the crop, and the amount of available soil moisture influenced the growth response of spring wheat to acute levels of grasshopper damage and acute levels of artificial damage. Ground-level cutting of plants resulted in the greatest reduction in plant biomass and crop yield, while grasshopper damage and artificial stripping of leaf material did not result in as severe a reduction in either biomass or yield.

Damaged plants were not able to recover lost biomass when damage occurred any later than the early stages of tillering despite observed relative growth rates which were higher than control plants. The greatest degree of recovery occurred in study sites with the greatest amount of available soil moisture.

The most detrimental effect of damage on yield was the reduction of heads per plant and kernel weight. In most cases differences in the number of seeds per head between damaged and control plants were not evident.

Résumé

L'étude conclut que les facteurs qui influent sur la croissance des peuplements de blé de printemps infestés par les sauterelles ou endommagés par un moyen artificiel sont : (1) le type de dégât, (2) le stade phénologique du peuplement et (3) la teneur en eau du sol. La coupe au ras du sol provoque la plus importante baisse de biomasse et de rendement, les dégâts causés par les sauterelles et la défoliation artificielle ayant des effets moins prononcés.

Seules les plantes endommagées aux tout premiers stades du tallage ont pu réprendre la biomasse perdue, bien que toutes les plantes avariées aient présenté un taux de croissance plus élevé que les plantes témoins. La teneur en eau du sol favorisa la récupération de la biomasse perdue.

Le pire effet des dégâts sur le rendement se traduit par une baisse du nombre d'épis par plante ainsi que du poids du grain. Dans la plupart des cas, il n'y a pas de différence entre le nombre de grains par épi chez les plantes avariées et chez les plantes témoins.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 115 , Issue 6 , June 1983 , pp. 629 - 636
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1983

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

Alcock, M. B., Lovett, J. V., and Machin, D.. 1968. Techniques used in the study of the influence of environment on primary pasture production in hill and lowland habitats. pp. 191–203in Wadsworth, R. M. (Ed.), The Measurement of Environmental Factors in Terrestrial Ecology. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Baskerville, G. L. and Emin, P.. 1969. Rapid estimation of heat accumulation from maximum and minimum temperatures. Ecology 50: 514–517.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. 1944. On the relationship between temperature and rate of development of insects at constant temperatures. J. Anim. Ecol. 13: 26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detling, J. K., Dyer, M. I., and Winn, D. T.. 1979. Net photosynthesis, root respiration, and regrowth of Bouteloua gracilis following simulated grazing. Oecologia 41: 127–134.Google Scholar
Gage, S. H. and Mukerji, M. K.. 1978. Crop losses associated with grasshoppers in relation to economics of crop production. J. econ. Ent. 71: 487–498.Google Scholar
Harris, P. 1974. A possible explanation of plant yield increases following insect damage. Agro-Ecosystems 1: 219–225.Google Scholar
Large, E. C. 1954. Growth stages in cereals. Pl. Pathol. 3: 128–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neales, T. F. and Incoll, L. D.. 1968. The control of leaf photosynthesis rate by the level of asssmilate concentration in the leaf: A review of the hypothesis. Bot. Rev. 34: 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickford, R. 1963. Wheat crops and native prairie in relation to the nutritional ecology of Camnula pellucida (Scudder) (Orthoptera: Acrididae) in Saskatchewan. Can. Ent. 95: 764–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, F. J. 1969. The quantitative analysis of growth. pp. 3–71in Steward, F. C. (Ed.), Plant Physiology. Academic Press, N.Y.Google Scholar
Southwood, T. R. E. and Norton, G. A.. 1973. Economic aspects of pest management strategies and decisions. pp. 168–181in Geier, P. W., Clark, L. W., Anderson, D. J., and Nix, H. A. (Eds.), Insects: Studies in Population Management. Ecol. Soc. Australia Mem. 1.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H.. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill, N.Y.481 pp.Google Scholar