Cargando…

Plant defense elicitors: plant fitness versus wheat stem sawfly

The wheat stem sawfly (WSS), Cephus cinctus Norton, is an important wheat pest in the Northern Great Plains of the USA. No single control measure effectively suppresses WSS damage. This study provides information on the effects on the WSS adult settling preference behavior on wheat plants under labo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shrestha, Govinda, Briar, Shabeg S., Reddy, Gadi V.P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PeerJ Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6215698/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30402358
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5892
_version_ 1783368195171680256
author Shrestha, Govinda
Briar, Shabeg S.
Reddy, Gadi V.P.
author_facet Shrestha, Govinda
Briar, Shabeg S.
Reddy, Gadi V.P.
author_sort Shrestha, Govinda
collection PubMed
description The wheat stem sawfly (WSS), Cephus cinctus Norton, is an important wheat pest in the Northern Great Plains of the USA. No single control measure effectively suppresses WSS damage. This study provides information on the effects on the WSS adult settling preference behavior on wheat plants under laboratory conditions from treatment with both synthetic plant defense elicitors (Actigard(®) and cis-jasmone) and a botanical insecticide (Azadirachtin(®)). In addition, field experiments were performed to determine whether these chemicals impact the WSS fitness (larval mortality and larval body weight), winter wheat plant fitness (infestation, stem lodging, yield, and quality), adult population of WSS and Bracon spp., and larval parasitism levels. Our lab results showed that there were no significant differences in adult settling behavior on plants exposed separately to each chemical and control. In contrast, when adults were exposed simultaneously to treated and untreated plants, there was a significant reduction in the percentage of adults settling on Actigard(®) and Azadirachtin(®) treated plants compared to plants sprayed with water in the same cage. However, in field situations, regardless of application timing and field location, none of the chemicals significantly reduced adult population or stems damage. The exception was two times applications of Actigard(®) had significantly lower WSS infested stem damage levels at 30 days after initial treatment applications at Knees and 50 days at Choteau locations compared to control, but without effect at the Conrad location. The field study indicated that two times applications of Actigard(®) significantly increased diapausing larval mortality percentages and lowered stem lodging levels compared to untreated controls at Knees and Choteau locations, while no effects at Conrad location. Larval body weight was significantly lower in plots treated with Actigard(®) at Knees and Conrad, but no effects at Choteau. No significant differences were found in wheat yield and quality in plots treated with chemicals and controls at any location. Bracon spp. adult population and parasitism levels were not negatively affected by the use of chemicals. In conclusion, this study offers insights on what treatments should be emphasized in more detail despite variable findings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6215698
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62156982018-11-06 Plant defense elicitors: plant fitness versus wheat stem sawfly Shrestha, Govinda Briar, Shabeg S. Reddy, Gadi V.P. PeerJ Agricultural Science The wheat stem sawfly (WSS), Cephus cinctus Norton, is an important wheat pest in the Northern Great Plains of the USA. No single control measure effectively suppresses WSS damage. This study provides information on the effects on the WSS adult settling preference behavior on wheat plants under laboratory conditions from treatment with both synthetic plant defense elicitors (Actigard(®) and cis-jasmone) and a botanical insecticide (Azadirachtin(®)). In addition, field experiments were performed to determine whether these chemicals impact the WSS fitness (larval mortality and larval body weight), winter wheat plant fitness (infestation, stem lodging, yield, and quality), adult population of WSS and Bracon spp., and larval parasitism levels. Our lab results showed that there were no significant differences in adult settling behavior on plants exposed separately to each chemical and control. In contrast, when adults were exposed simultaneously to treated and untreated plants, there was a significant reduction in the percentage of adults settling on Actigard(®) and Azadirachtin(®) treated plants compared to plants sprayed with water in the same cage. However, in field situations, regardless of application timing and field location, none of the chemicals significantly reduced adult population or stems damage. The exception was two times applications of Actigard(®) had significantly lower WSS infested stem damage levels at 30 days after initial treatment applications at Knees and 50 days at Choteau locations compared to control, but without effect at the Conrad location. The field study indicated that two times applications of Actigard(®) significantly increased diapausing larval mortality percentages and lowered stem lodging levels compared to untreated controls at Knees and Choteau locations, while no effects at Conrad location. Larval body weight was significantly lower in plots treated with Actigard(®) at Knees and Conrad, but no effects at Choteau. No significant differences were found in wheat yield and quality in plots treated with chemicals and controls at any location. Bracon spp. adult population and parasitism levels were not negatively affected by the use of chemicals. In conclusion, this study offers insights on what treatments should be emphasized in more detail despite variable findings. PeerJ Inc. 2018-11-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6215698/ /pubmed/30402358 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5892 Text en © 2018 Shrestha et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
spellingShingle Agricultural Science
Shrestha, Govinda
Briar, Shabeg S.
Reddy, Gadi V.P.
Plant defense elicitors: plant fitness versus wheat stem sawfly
title Plant defense elicitors: plant fitness versus wheat stem sawfly
title_full Plant defense elicitors: plant fitness versus wheat stem sawfly
title_fullStr Plant defense elicitors: plant fitness versus wheat stem sawfly
title_full_unstemmed Plant defense elicitors: plant fitness versus wheat stem sawfly
title_short Plant defense elicitors: plant fitness versus wheat stem sawfly
title_sort plant defense elicitors: plant fitness versus wheat stem sawfly
topic Agricultural Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6215698/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30402358
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5892
work_keys_str_mv AT shresthagovinda plantdefenseelicitorsplantfitnessversuswheatstemsawfly
AT briarshabegs plantdefenseelicitorsplantfitnessversuswheatstemsawfly
AT reddygadivp plantdefenseelicitorsplantfitnessversuswheatstemsawfly