Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:23:12.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stylet penetration and feeding damage of Eupteryx melissae Curtis (Hemiptera, Cicadellidae) on sage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

D. G. Pollard
D. G. Pollard
Affiliation:
Bristol Technical College, Ashley Down, Bristol 7
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The feeding of Eupteryx melissae Curt. (Cicadellidae) on the leaves of ssge gives rise to the appearance of chlorotic spots, as a result of damaged mesophyll cells becoming filled with air. The length of the mandibular stylets in this species (as averaged from the adult and five nymphal instars) is 67 per cent. of that of the maxillaries, both types of stylet being slightly larger in females. The mandibular stylets when inserted do not penetrate much below the leaf surface where they are held by barbs and a salivary sheath, and the total extent of their insertion is only 29 per cent. of that of the maxillary stylets. The latter are the main penetrating organs; the stylets may move together or independently and are not surrounded by a sheath. Mandibular and maxillary penetration is greatest in fifth-stage nymphs, the mean (and maximum) distances being 97 (205)μ and 177 (340)μ respectively. It increases progressively from the first nymphal stage, and in the adult shows mean values near those of nymphs in the third or fourth stage. Rate and depth of stylet penetration is very variable, due to repeated maxillary protraction and retraction, and there is little correlation between the lengths to which the mandibular and the maxillary stylets are extended. Exuvial stylets, particularly the mandibulars of fifth-stage numphs, consistently show a graeter degree of extruction than is to be found in nymphs when feeding normally: such deeper insertion may help to anchor the insect more firmly during ecdysis.

Stylet insertion is by pressure, intracellular, and very rapid (attaining rates up to 115μ per minute). The sex of the individual insect and the leaf-surface attacked have no effect on depth of penetration, at least in certain nymphal stages, and all tissues of the lamina are available for feeding, even to first-stage nymphs, in consequence of the relatively greater development of the stylets in the younger insects. During penetration the mandibular stylets move alternately and initially lead, but quickly come to rest, and further penetration is by the maxillaries which follow a mainly intracellular path. Protrusion of one maxillary stylet beyond the other (up to a maximum distance of 112μ.) was observed in plant tissue and observations of feeding on stripped epidermis show that such a stylet can empty cells at its apex. Protoplasts are removed from a cell within a few seconds, and as this appears to be too short a time to allow digestion, it is assumed that chloroplasts must be mechanically fragmented on passage into the food canal. Removal may be a two-stage process, and if it is assumed that sometimes only the first stage is completed, and is accompanied by saliva injection, it is possible to explain the occurrence, as unimbibed residue, of plasmolysed degenerating chromophilic cells scattered throughout damaged tissue, which occurs mainly in the palisade and spongy parenchyma, and only seldom in vascular tissue. There is no evidence for diffusion of any salivary toxin from damaged cells or from the sheath. Stylet-tracks in damaged areas are unbranched and short and rarely give any indication of the cells fed upon or of the repeated probing by the maxillary stylets that is known to occur.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , September 1968 , pp. 55 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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

Auclair, J. L. (1963). Aphid feeding and nutrition.—A. Rev. Ent. 8 pp. 439–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Awati, P. R. & SirWolfe-Barry, J. (1914). The mechanism of suction in the potato capsid bug,Lygus pabulinus Linn.—Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1914 pp. 685–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerji, L. G. (1960). Morphology of the head capsule of Aspongopus janus Fabr. (Pentatomidae: Heteroptera).—Agra Univ. J. Res. (Sci.) 9 pp. 47–64.Google Scholar
Bennett, C. W. (1934). Plant-tissue relations of the sugar-beet curly-top virus.—J. agric. Res. 48 pp.665–701.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. H. E. (1952). Studies on the aphid transmission of a strain of henbane mosaic virus.—Ann. appl. Biol. 39 pp. 78–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandes, E. W. (1923). Mechanics of inoculation with sugar-cane mosaic by insect vectors.—J. agric. Res. 23 pp. 279–283.Google Scholar
Carter, W. (1945). The oral secretions of the pineapple mealybug.—J. econ. Ent. 38 pp. 335–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J. (1914). On the mouth-parts and mechanism of suction in Schizoneura lanigera Hausmann.—J. Linn. Soc. (Zool.) 32 pp. 307–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, M.F., Irzykeiwicz, H. & Mckinnon, A. (1952). Observations on the feeding of the virus vector Orosis argentatus (Evans), and comparisons with certain other jasids.—Aust. J. scient. Res. (B) 5 pp. 128–142.Google Scholar
Goodchild, A. J. P. (1966). Evolution of the alimentary canal in the Hemiptera.—Biol. Rev. 41 pp. 97–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargreaves, E. (1915). The life-history and habits of the greenhouse white fly (Aleyrodes vaporariorum Westd.).—Ann. appl. Biol. 1 pp. 303–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horne, A. S. & Lefroy, H. M. (1915). Effects produced by sucking insects and red spider upon potato foliage.—Ann. appl. Biol. 1 pp. 370–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houston, B. R., Esau, K. & Hewitt, W. B. (1947). The mode of vector feeding and the tissues involved in the transmission of Pierce’s disease virus in grape and alfalfa.—Phytopathology 37 pp. 247–253.Google Scholar
King, W. V. & Cook, W. S. (1932). Feeding punctures of mirids and other plantsucking insects and their effect on cotton.—Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 296, 11 pp.Google Scholar
Mathur, P. N. & Joseph, A. N. T. (1961). Studies on the external morphology of Pergrinus maidis (Ashmead) (Homoptera, Fulgoroidea, Araeopidae = Delphacidae).—J. Anim. Morph. Physiol. 8 pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Miles, P. W. (1958). The stylet movements of a plant-sucking bug, Oncopeltus fasciatus Dall. (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae).—Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A)33 pp. 15–20.Google Scholar
Miles, P. W. (1959). Secretion of two types of saliva by an aphid.—Nature, Lond. 183 p. 756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinet, J. M. (1963). L’innervation sensorielle des stylets mandibulaires et maxillaires de Rhodnius prolixus Stål. (Insecte Hèmiptère Hètèroptère).—C. R. hebd. Séanc. Acad. Sci., Paris 257 pp. 3666–3668.Google Scholar
Pollard, D. G. (1955). Feeding habits of the cotton whitefly, Bemisia tabaci Genn. (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae).—Ann. appl. Biol. 43 pp. 664–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, D. G. (1958). Feeding of the cotton aphid (Aphis gossypii Glover).—Emp. Cott. Gr. Rev. 35 pp. 244–253.Google Scholar
Pollard, D. G. (1959). Feeding habits of the lace-bug Urentius aegyptiacus Bergevin (Hemiptera: Tingidae).—Ann. appl. Biol. 47 pp. 778–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putman, W. L. (1941). The feeding habits of certain leafhoppers.—Can. Ent. 73 pp. 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qadri, M. A. H. (1949). On the digestive system and the skeleto-muscular structures of the head capsule in the mangohoppers, Idiocerus niveosparsus (Leth.) and Idiocerus clypealis (Leth.) (Homoptera: Jassidae).—Proc. zool. Soc. Bengal 2 pp. 43–55.Google Scholar
Saxena, K. N. (1954). Feeding habits and physiology of digestion of certain leafhoppers Homoptera: Jassidae.—Experientia 10 pp. 383–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheel, C. A., Beck, S. D. & Medler, J. T. (1958). Feeding and nutrition of certain Hemiptera.—Proc. 10th int. Congr. Ent. 1956, 2 pp. 303–308.Google Scholar
Smith, F. F. (1933). The nature of the sheath material in the feeding punctures produced by the potato leaf hopper and the three-cornered alfalfa hopper.—J. agric. Res. 47 pp. 475–485.Google Scholar
Smith, F. F. & Poos, F. W. (1931). The feeding habits of some leaf hoppers of the genus Empoasca.—J. agric. Res. 43 pp. 267–285.Google Scholar
Smith, K. M. (1926). A comparative study of the feeding methods of certain Hemiptera and of the resulting effects upon the plant tissue, with special reference to the potato plant.—Ann. appl. Biol. 13 pp. 109–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storey, H. H. (1938). Investigations of the mechanism of the transmission of plant viruses by insect vectors. II. The part played by puncture in transmission.—Proc. R. Soc. (B) 125 no. 841 pp. 455–477.Google Scholar
Storey, H. H. (1939). Investigations of the mechanism of the transmission of plant viruses by insect vectors. III. The insect’s saliva.—Proc. R. Soc. (B) 127 no. 849 pp. 526–543.Google Scholar
Weber, H. (1930). Biologie der Hemipteren.—543 pp. Berlin, SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar