Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:15:06.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Rhopalosiphum padi (L.) and R. fitchii (Sand.) as Vectors of Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Harvey C. Smith  and
W. R. Richards
Harvey C. Smith
Affiliation:
National Research Council Doctorate Fellow, Plant Research Institute, Ottawa, on leave from Plant Diseases Division, Lincoln, New Zealand.
W. R. Richards
Affiliation:
Entomology Research Institute, Research Branch, Canada Agriculture, Ottawa, Ontario.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although Rhopalosiphum padi L. was common on cereals and Gramineae in Ontario, only a small number of R. fitchii (Sand.) were found on one grass plant in 1961. Fundatrigeniae of R. padi from Prunus virginiana L. and of R. fitchii from Crataegus spp. and Malus spp. were transferred to oats and wheat on which alienicolae of R. padi multiplied rapidly, but R. fitchii very slowly. R. fitchii transmitted all but one of the isolates of barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV) that R. padi transmitted to Clintland 60 oats, but fewer test plants became infected, the incubation period for symptom development was longer and symptoms were less severe when R. fitchii was the vector. Both species infected more test plants after a 5-day than after a 2-day acquisition feed on the virus source. It appears that R. padi, a common and efficient vector of BYDV, has frequently been mistaken for R. fitchii which is not common on cereals and not a highly efficient vector.

A dosage concept is proposed to explain differences in vector efficiencies of R. padi and R. fitchii. It is also suggested that strains of BYDV become ’adapted’ to transmission by a vector species.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 95 , Issue 5 , May 1963 , pp. 537 - 547
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1963

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

Bruehl, G. W. 1961. Barley yellow dwarf. Monograph No. 1. The American Phytopathological Society.Google Scholar
Hille Ris Lambers, D. 1960. The identity and name of a vector of barley yellow dwarf virus. Virology 12: 487–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jedlinski, H., and Brown, C. M.. 1959. Barley yellow dwarf virus on oats in Illinois in 1959. Plant Disease Reptr. Suppl. 262: 326–332.Google Scholar
Mueller, W. C., and Rochow, W. F.. 1961. An aphid injection method for the transmission of barley yellow dwarf virus. Virology 14: 253–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orlob, G. B. 1961. Host plant preference of cereal aphids in the field in relation to the ecology of barley yellow dwarf virus. Ent. Expt. Appl. 4: 62–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlob, G. B., and Arny, D. C.. 1960. Transmission of barley yellow dwarf by different forms of the apple grain aphid, Rhopalosiphum fitchii (Sand.). Virology 11: 273–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oswald, J. W., and Houston, B. R.. 1953. The yellow dwarf virus disease of cereal crops. Phytopathology 43: 128–136.Google Scholar
Richards, W. R. 1960. A synopsis of the genus Rhopalosiphum in Canada (Homoptera: Aphididae). Can. Entomologist Suppl. 13, 51 pp.Google Scholar
Rogerson, J. P. 1947. The oat bird cherry aphid, Rhopalosiphum padi (L.) and comparison with R. crataetellum Theo. (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Bull. Entomol. Research 38: 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slykhuis, J. T., Zillinsky, F. J., Hannah, A. F., and Richards, W. R.. 1959. Barley yellow dwarf virus on cereals in Ontario. Plant Disease Reptr. 43: 849–854.Google Scholar
Smith, H. C. 1961. Barley yellow dwarf virus survey in Canada, 1961. Canadian Plant Disease Survey 41: 344–352.Google Scholar
Storey, H. H. 1938. Investigations of the mechanism of the transmission of plant viruses by insect vectors. II. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 125: 455–477.Google Scholar