Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T11:40:10.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring the performance of aphids: fecundity versus biomass1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2012

Robert J. Lamb ,
Patricia A. MacKay  and
Samuel M. Migui
Robert J. Lamb*
Affiliation:
Cereal Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 195 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2M9
Patricia A. MacKay
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2
Samuel M. Migui
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2
*
2Corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fecundity and biomass of nine species of aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae) feeding on six species of plants were compared to assess whether the two measures are equally effective for quantifying aphid performance. Performance was quantified by measuring both fecundity (the number of offspring born over a defined interval) and biomass (the dry mass of offspring produced) using three variables expected to affect performance: host-plant genotype, aphid genotype, and aphid density. The efficacy of the performance parameters was assessed by comparing their ability to discriminate among treatments for the three variables. Biomass usually provided a more effective measure of performance than fecundity, but for one aphid species, fecundity was more effective than biomass. Biomass of offspring is the preferred measure of performance, but biomass and fecundity should both be recorded whenever practical.

Résumé

Nous avons comparé la fécondité et la biomasse chez neuf espèces de pucerons pour savoir si ces mesures sont également efficaces pour évaluer la performance des pucerons. Nous avons calculé la performance en mesurant à la fois la fécondité (nombre de rejetons nés pendant un intervalle défini) et la biomasse (masse sèche des rejetons produits) en fonction de trois variables pouvant affecter la performance, le génotype de la plante hôte, le génotype des pucerons et la densité de pucerons. L’efficacité des mesures de la performance est déterminée d’après leur capacité à distinguer entre les traitements expérimentaux pour les trois variables. La biomasse s’avère généralement une mesure plus efficace de la performance que n’est la fécondité. Cependant, chez une espèce de puceron, la fécondité fait une meilleure discrimination de la performance que la biomasse. La biomasse des rejetons est donc la mesure à retenir pour évaluer la performance, mais il serait bon de noter conjointement la fécondité et la biomasse.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 141 , Issue 4 , August 2009 , pp. 401 - 405
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2009

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.)

Footnotes

1

Contribution No. 1975 of the Cereal Research Centre.

References

Caillaud, C.M., Dedryver, C.A., and Simon, J.C. 1994. Development and reproductive potential of the cereal aphid Sitiobion avenae on resistant wheat accessions (Triticum monococcum). Annals of Applied Biology, 125: 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, T.P., and Ohgushi, T. 2002. Preference and performance are correlated in the spittlebug Aphrophora pectoralis on four species of willow. Ecological Entomology, 27: 529–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, A.F.G. 1987. Parthenogenetic reproduction and the rate of increase in aphids. In Aphids their biology, natural enemies and control. Vol. 2A. World crop pests. Edited by Minks, A.K. and Harrewijn, P.. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 269–287.Google Scholar
Gavloski, J.E., and Lamb, R.J. 2000. Specific impacts of herbivores: comparing diverse insect species on young plants. Environmental Entomology, 29: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, R.J., and Grenkow, L. 2008. Efficiency of a herbivore–plant interaction: conversion of biomass from flax (Linaceae) to aphid, Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Hemiptera: Aphididae). The Canadian Entomologist, 140: 600–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, R.J., and MacKay, P.A. 1995. Tolerance of antibiotic and susceptible cereal seedlings to the aphids Metopolophium dirhodum and Rhopalosiphum padi. Annals of applied Biology, 127: 573–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, R.J., Smith, M.A.H., and Bodnaryk, R.P. 1993. Leaf waxiness and the performance of Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach) (Homoptera: Aphididae) on three Brassica crops. The Canadian Entomologist, 125: 1023–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, R.J., Sridhar, P., Smith, M.A.H., and Wise, I.L. 2003. Oviposition preference and offspring performance of a wheat midge Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) on defended and less defended wheat plants. Environmental Entomology, 32: 414–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKay, P.A., and Lamb, R.J. 1996. Dispersal of five aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) in relation to their impact on Hordeum vulgare. Environmental Entomology, 25: 1032–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, P.J. 1997. Adaptive patterns of host-plant selection by phytophagous insects. Oikos, 79: 417–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Migui, S.M., and Lamb, R.J. 2003. Patterns of resistance to three cereal aphids among wheats in the genus Triticum (Poaceae). Bulletin of Entomological Research, 93: 323–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Migui, S.M., and Lamb, R.J. 2006. Sources of variation in the interaction between three cereal aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and wheat (Poaceae). Bulletin of Entomological Research, 96: 235–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moran, N. 1984. Reproductive performance of a specialist herbivore, Uroleucon nigrotibium (Homoptera), on its host and on a non-host. Oikos, 42: 171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J.N. 1988. Evolutionary ecology of the relationship between oviposition preference and performance of offspring in phytophagous insects. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 47: 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wise, I.L., Lamb, R.J., and Smith, M.A.H. 2001. Host plant relationships of Sitodiplosis mosellana (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) and Triticum (Gramineae): domestication and the susceptibility of wheat to herbivory. The Canadian Entomologist, 133: 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyatt, I.J., and White, P.F. 1977. Simple estimation of intrinsic increase rates for aphids and tetranychid mites. Journal of Applied Ecology, 14: 757–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar