Comparison of the Probing Behaviors of Empoasca fabae and E. kraemeri (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) on Resistant and Susceptible Cultivars of Common Beans
The probing behaviors of two leafhoppers, Empoasca fabae (Harris) and E. kraemeri (Ross & Moore), feeding on susceptible ('Porrillo Sintetico') and resistant ('EMP- 84') Common beans, Phaseolus vulgaris L., were studied using an AC electronic monitoring system (EMS) (McLean & Kinsey 1964). The behaviors of the two species were generally similar. For both species, three probing behaviors were dominant in duration and number of probes: (1) multiple-cell laceration probing, represented by the In waveform, (2) singlecell puncture probing, Ib' and (3) still-stylet ingestion, Ie' On the susceptible cultivar, multiple-cell laceration was dominant for both species, in duration and number of probes. Both species made more probes, all of medium to long duration, in interveinal areas. When feeding on veins, they chose larger over smaller veins and made fewer probes (all of short duration). However, E. kraemeri made significantly more, short-duration laceration probes than did E. fabae. When feeding on the resistant and susceptible cultivars was Compared, there was no significant difference in the duration of probing by an average insect in either species. Yet, there were significant differences in types of probing behavior exhibited on the two hosts, primarily because of a decrease in the number of short-duration probes containing multiple-cell laceration probing on the resistant cultivar, 'EMP-84'. There was also a proportionate increase in the number of longer probes containing single-cell puncture probing and still-stylet ingestion. Fewer mechanical punctures were made and, possibly, less saliva was injected into 'EMP-84' than 'Porrillo Sintetico' plants. Thus, on 'EMP-84', a switch in behavior occurred from multiple-cell laceration probing, which was more abundant on the susceptible cultivar and may be more damaging, to stilI-stylet ingestion or Single-cell puncture probing, currently thought to be less damaging probing styles. The results show that Empoasca spp. leafhoppers did not reject the resistant plant, nor to our knowledge, was the resistant plant itself tolerant to the effects of feeding in the customary sense. Instead, 'EMP-84' may exhibit a new mechanism of tolerance, wherein the attacking leafhoppers were stimulated to feed in a less damaging manner.
Document Type: Research Article
Publication date: February 1, 1992
More about this publication?
Journal of Economic Entomology is published bimonthly in February, April, June, August, October, and December. The journal publishes articles on the economic significance of insects and is divided into the following sections: apiculture & social insects; arthropods in relation to plant disease; forum; insecticide resistance and resistance management; ecotoxicology; biological and microbial control; ecology and behavior; sampling and biostatistics; household and structural insects; medical entomology; molecular entomology; veterinary entomology; forest entomology; horticultural entomology; field and forage crops, and small grains; stored-product; commodity treatment and quarantine entomology; and plant resistance. In addition to research papers, Journal of Economic Entomology publishes Letters to the Editor, interpretive articles in a Forum section, Short Communications, Rapid Communications, and Book Reviews.
- Editorial Board
- Submit a Paper
- Subscribe to this Title
- Information for Advertisers
- Visit this journal's homepage
- ingentaconnect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites
Open access content
Free trial content