Premium
Identification of phloem sieve elements as the site of resistance to silverleaf whitefly in resistant alfalfa genotypes
Author(s) -
Jiang Y. X.,
Walker G. P.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
entomologia experimentalis et applicata
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.765
H-Index - 83
eISSN - 1570-7458
pISSN - 0013-8703
DOI - 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2007.00627.x
Subject(s) - honeydew , biology , phloem , pest analysis , homoptera , botany , instar , nymph , horticulture , larva
Experiments were conducted to locate the plant tissue where resistance is expressed against silverleaf whitefly, Bemisia argentifolii Bellows and Perring (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae), in alfalfa, Medicago sativa L. (Fabaceae), genotypes previously shown to have high levels of resistance against this pest. Previous work demonstrated that resistance in the resistant alfalfa genotypes was expressed primarily as high first‐instar mortality; consequently this study focused on first‐instar nymphs. Examination of stylets in cleared leaf tissue indicated that first‐instar nymphs located vascular bundles with equal success on resistant and susceptible alfalfa genotypes. Furthermore, direct current electrical penetration graphs (DC‐EPG) indicated that sieve elements were penetrated and phloem ingestion behavior was initiated with equal success on resistant and susceptible genotypes. Thus, the mechanism of resistance does not reside in tissues encountered by the stylets prior to penetrating a phloem sieve element. Honeydew production (as a proxy for ingestion) was greatly reduced on two resistant genotypes compared to the two susceptible genotypes. The frequency distribution of honeydew production was bimodal, indicating that most individuals on the resistant genotypes produced little or no honeydew while some produced as much honeydew as whiteflies on the susceptible genotypes. This indicates that expression of resistance is an all‐or‐nothing phenomenon; an individual nymph either encounters resistance and cannot sustain ingestion or it does not encounter resistance and ingests just as well as on a susceptible plant. Intermediates are rare. DC‐EPGs indicate that phloem ingestion behavior is significantly reduced on two of the resistant genotypes compared to the susceptible genotypes. The primary reason for this appears to be more frequent termination of phloem ingestion behavior on at least one of the resistant genotypes. On one of the resistant genotypes, the productivity of EPG‐measured phloem ingestion behavior (honeydew produced per min of phloem ingestion behavior) was reduced compared to a susceptible control.