Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-94d59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T21:44:19.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

RESISTANCE TO SITODIPLOSIS MOSELLANA (DIPTERA: CECIDOMYIIDAE) IN SPRING WHEAT (GRAMINEAE)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

R.J. Lamb*
Affiliation:
Cereal Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 195 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2M9
R.I.H. McKenzie
Affiliation:
Cereal Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 195 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2M9
I.L. Wise
Affiliation:
Cereal Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 195 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2M9
P.S. Barker
Affiliation:
Cereal Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 195 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2M9
M.A.H. Smith
Affiliation:
Cereal Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 195 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2M9
O.O. Olfert
Affiliation:
Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 107 Science Crescent, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 0X2
*
2 Author to whom all corresponding should be addressed (E-mail: Rlamb@em.agr.ca).

Abstract

Cultivars of winter wheat, Triticum aestivum L., previously identified as possible sources of resistance to wheat midge, Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin), were crossed with spring wheat to produce lines with a spring growth habit and assure synchrony between insect and plant. Many of the lines showed low levels of infestation by wheat midge in the field, and 21 of these were tested for resistance in the laboratory. All test lines exhibited resistance, ranging from 58 to 100% suppression of larvae and 70 to 100% suppression of seed damage, compared with a susceptible line. Larval development was delayed and survival was reduced on all lines. This antibiosis was associated with a hypersensitive reaction in the seed surface. The hypersensitive reaction, or feeding damage by young larvae before they died, reduced the biomass of some infested resistant seeds by 28% compared with over 60% for infested susceptible seeds. Some lines also reduced the level of infestation either through oviposition deterrence or a resistance which prevented newly hatched larvae from establishing on the seed surface. A few lines also reduced the hatching rate of wheat midge eggs. The resistance was equally effective in field trials during two consecutive summers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, with at least a 20-times difference in the level of infestation between susceptible and resistant wheats. No larvae could develop to maturity on some resistant lines. Large plots of one resistant line produced less than 1% as many larvae as a typical susceptible wheat, and the larvae that did survive produced few, small adults. This resistance is the first documented case of a high level of true resistance to wheat midge in spring wheat, distinct from asynchrony between the insect and susceptible stage of the plant. The antibiosis component of the resistance is currently being incorporated in cultivars suitable for production in western Canada.

Résumé

Des cultivars du blé d’hiver, Triticum aestivum L., reconnu précédemment comme une source possible de résistance à la Cécidomyie du blé, Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin), ont été croisés avec du blé de printemps pour produire des lignées à croissance printanière et assurer le synchronisme de l’insecte et de la plante. Plusieurs des lignées avaient des taux d’infestation de la cécidomyie plutôt bas en nature et nous avons testé la résistance de 21 de ces lignées en laboratoire. Toutes les lignées testées ont fait preuve de résistance, aboutissant à la suppression de 58 à 100% des larves et 70–100% des dommages aux graines, comparativement à une lignée sensible. Le développement larvaire était retardé et la survie était réduite chez toutes les lignées. Cette antibiose était associée à une réaction hypersensible à la surface de la graine. La réaction d’hypersensibilité ou les dommages causés par l’alimentation par les jeunes larves avant leur mort avaient pour effet de réduire la biomasse de certaines graines résistantes infestées de 28%, comparativement à plus de 60% dans le cas des graines infestées sensibles. Certaines lignées réduisaient également le degré d’infestation, soit en inhibant la ponte, ou alors par résistance, empêchant les larves néonates de s’établir à la surface des graines. Quelques lignées réduisaient aussi le taux d’éclosion des oeufs de l’insecte. Dans les expériences en nature, la résistance a eu la même efficacité au cours de deux étés consécutifs au Manitoba et en Saskatchewan et il y avait toujours une différence du degré d’infestation d’un facteur égal à au moins vingt entre les lignées sensibles et les lignées résistantes. Les larves ne pouvaient pas atteindre la maturité chez certaines lignées résistantes. De grandes parcelles de l’une des lignées résistantes ont produit moins de 1% des larves obtenues sur un blé sensible typique et les larves qui ont survécu n’ont donné que quelques adultes de petite taille. Il s’agit là du premier cas rapporté d’un fort degré de résistance réelle du blé de printemps à la cécidomyiie, résistance qui n’est pas qu’un simple asynchronisme entre l’insecte et le stade sensible de la plante. La composante de l’antibiose de la résistance est à l’heure actuelle en train d’être’ incorporée dans des cultivars prometteurs pour la production dans l’Ouest canadien.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2000

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.)

Footnotes

1

Contribution No.1776 of the Cereal Research Centre, Winnipeg.

References

Barker, P.S., McKenzie, R.I.H. 1996. Possible sources of resistance to the wheat midge in wheat. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 76: 689–95Google Scholar
Dexter, J.E., Preston, K.R., Cooke, L.A., Morgan, B.C., Kruger, J.E., Kilborn, R.H., Elliott, R.H. 1987. The influence of orange wheat blossom midge (Sitodiplosis mosellana Géhin) damage on hard red spring wheat quality and the effectiveness of insecticide treatments. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 67: 697712Google Scholar
Ding, H., Lamb, R.J. 1999. Oviposition and larval establishment of Sitodiplosis mosellana (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) on wheat (Gramineae) at different growth stages. The Canadian Entomologist 131: 475–81Google Scholar
Ding, H., Lamb, R.J., Ames, N. 2000. Inducible production of phenolic acids in wheat and antibiotic resistance to Sitodiplosis mosellana (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology 26: 969–85Google Scholar
Elliott, R.H. 1988 a. Evaluation of insecticides for protection of wheat against damage by the wheat midge, Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). The Canadian Entomologist 120: 615–26Google Scholar
Elliott, R.H. 1988 b. Factors influencing the efficacy and economic returns of aerial sprays against the wheat midge, Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). The Canadian Entomologist 120: 941–54Google Scholar
Elliott, R.H., Mann, L.W. 1996. Susceptibility of red spring wheat, Triticum aestivum L. cv. Katepwa, during heading and anthesis to damage by wheat midge, Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). The Canadian Entomologist 128: 367–75Google Scholar
Gagné, R.J., Doane, J.F. 1999. The larval instars of the wheat midge, Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 101: 5763Google Scholar
Kurppa, S. 1989. Susceptibility and reaction of wheat and barley varieties grown in Finland to damage by the orange wheat blossom midge Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin). Annales Agriculturae Fenniae 28: 371–83Google Scholar
Lamb, R.J., Wise, I.L., Olfert, O.O., Gavloski, J., Barker, P.S. 1999. Distribution and seasonal abundance of Sitodiplosis mosellana (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) in spring wheat. The Canadian Entomologist 131: 387–97Google Scholar
Lamb, R.J., Tucker, J.R., Wise, I.L., Smith, M.A.H. 2000. Trophic interaction between Sitodiplosis mosellana (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) and spring wheat: implications for yield and seed quality. The Canadian Entomologist 132: 607–25Google Scholar
Laurie, D.A., Bennett, M.D. 1988. The production of haploid wheat plants from wheat maize crosses. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 70: 100–5Google Scholar
Mukerji, M.K., Olfert, O.O., Doane, J.F. 1988. Development of sampling designs for egg and larval populations of the wheat midge, Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), in wheat. The Canadian Entomologist 120: 497505Google Scholar
Olfert, O.O., Mukerji, M.K., Doane, J.F. 1985. Relationship between infestation levels and yield loss caused by wheat midge, Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), in spring wheat in Saskatchewan. The Canadian Entomologist 117: 593–8Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. 1989. SAS/STAT® user's guide, version 6. 4th ed. Vol. 1. Cary: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Wright, A.T., Doane, J.F. 1987. Wheat midge infestation of spring cereals in northeastern Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 67: 117–20Google Scholar