| Literature DB >> 26193111 |
Mamoudou Sétamou1, David W Bartels2.
Abstract
The spatial niche occupation of the Asian citrus psyllid, Diaphorina citri Kuwayama, 1908, was evaluated to determine its field colonization and food resource exploitation strategies in citrus groves. Mature grapefruit and sweet orange groves were surveyed as part of an area-wide program in 2009-2010 to determine D. citri population densities and between-tree distribution. In both cultivars, significantly more psyllids were found on perimeter trees throughout the study period suggesting a strong edge effect in D. citri distribution in the groves. D. citri densities and infestation levels gradually declined from the edge to the center of grove. Higher numbers of D. citri were recorded on trees located on the east and south sides of the groves than those on the west and north sides. Citrus groves located at the outer edge of the study with at least one side non-surrounded to other citrus groves harbored significantly more D. citri than groves located within the block cluster and entirely surrounded by other groves. In detailed field studies during 2012, infestation of D. citri started from border trees in the grove where possibly one generation is completed before inner trees become infested. In addition, psyllid densities decreased significantly with increasing distance from the grove edge. Using the selection index, D citri exhibited a strong niche occupation preference for border trees.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26193111 PMCID: PMC4507854 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131917
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Mixed model analysis of variance showing F-values of major parameters affecting D. citri densities and infestation levels in mature citrus groves in Texas (2009–2010).
| Effect | Numerator DF |
|
|
| % flush shoots infested |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Host Plant | 1 | 1.55ns | 69.59 | 76.34 | 158.08 |
| Grove location | 1 | 18.09 | 21.16 | 36.20 | 41.78 |
| Tree position in grove | 2 | 14.73 | 99.45 | 179.72 | 221.72 |
| Sampling period | 23 | 32.46 | 69.28 | 75.31 | 85.03 |
Error df for all analysis = 35,000.
1 ns = non-significant (P>0.05).
** = highly significant (P < 0.01).
Fig 1Diaphorina citri flush shoot infestation levels and population fluctuations on citrus trees depending on their position in the grove during area-wide surveys (2009–2010).
Fig 2Comparative D. citri flush infestation levels and densities on trees of inner and outer groves in the area-wide study sites (2009–2010).
Fig 3Mean number of D. citri life stages per flush shoot and percent flush infestation level in relation to tree location in grapefruit and sweet orange groves during area-wide surveys (2009–2010).
Exponential decay function (y = a*exp [-bx]) describing the decrease in D. citri densities and infestation levels from the edge to the interior of the grove in area-wide surveys.
| Host Plant | Parameter | Value | SE | R2 | Distance to 50% reduction (m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Grapefruit |
| 0.39 | 0.035 | 0.97 | |
|
| 0.025 | 0.005 | 27.7 | ||
| Orange |
| 0.38 | 0.015 | 0.99 | |
|
| 0.016 | 0.002 | 44.0 | ||
|
| |||||
| Grapefruit |
| 0.86 | 0.233 | 0.73 | |
|
| 0.025 | 0.017 | 28.3 | ||
| Orange |
| 1.33 | 0.463 | 0.65 | |
|
| 0.027 | 0.002 | 25.9 | ||
|
| |||||
| Grapefruit |
| 0.30 | 0.069 | 0.79 | |
|
| 0.024 | 0.014 | 29.3 | ||
| Orange |
| 0.43 | 0.055 | 0.95 | |
|
| 0.032 | 0.009 | 21.7 | ||
| % flush shoots infested by | |||||
| Grapefruit |
| 4.51 | 0.093 | 0.80 | |
|
| 0.021 | 0.013 | 33.1 | ||
| Orange |
| 6.89 | 1.03 | 0.90 | |
|
| 0.024 | 0.0089 | 29.5 | ||
Fig 4Mean number of D. citri adults caught on ACP-traps relative to tree position mature and young grapefruit groves in a field study (TAMUK-Citrus Center, 2012).
Parameter estimates and fit statistics of cumulative number of D. citri caught on ACP-trap during a growing season in young and mature grapefruit groves.
| Sampling site | Parameter | Estimate | SE | t-value |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area-wide surveys | ||||||
| Grapefruit groves | ||||||
| Perimeter |
| 8.95 | 0.39 | 22.81 | <0.0001 | 0.98 |
|
| 3.41 | 0.34 | 10.07 | <0.0001 | ||
|
| 13.42 | 0.48 | 27.78 | <0.0001 | ||
| Adjacent |
| 5.06 | 0.24 | 21.34 | <0.0001 | 0.98 |
|
| 4.05 | 0.36 | 11.11 | <0.0001 | ||
|
| 13.35 | 0.56 | 23.84 | <0.0001 | ||
| Interior |
| 3.26 | 0.23 | 13.99 | <0.0001 | 0.97 |
|
| 4.74 | 0.56 | 8.46 | <0.0001 | ||
|
| 13.45 | 0.93 | 14.42 | <0.0001 | ||
| Sweet orange groves | ||||||
| Perimeter |
| 12.51 | 0.37 | 33.50 | <0.0001 | 0.99 |
|
| 3.88 | 0.24 | 16.50 | <0.0001 | ||
|
| 13.24 | 0.35 | 37.60 | <0.0001 | ||
| Adjacent |
| 7.81 | 0.36 | 21.68 | <0.0001 | 0.98 |
|
| 4.54 | 0.38 | 12.04 | <0.0001 | ||
|
| 13.01 | 0.60 | 21.86 | <0.0001 | ||
| Interior |
| 3.55 | 0.30 | 11.84 | <0.0001 | 0.96 |
|
| 5.04 | 0.63 | 7.97 | <0.0001 | ||
|
| 219.8 | 1.13 | 12.41 | <0.0001 | ||
| Field trials | ||||||
| Young grapefruit grove | ||||||
| Perimeter |
| 107.4 | 13.76 | 7.80 | <0.0001 | 0.96 |
|
| 32.1 | 7.45 | 4.32 | 0.0006 | ||
|
| 234.0 | 11.23 | 21.0 | <0.0001 | ||
| Adjacent |
| 37.3 | 3.77 | 9.90 | <0.0001 | 0.96 |
|
| 30.0 | 6.48 | 4.63 | <0.0001 | ||
|
| 223.2 | 9.53 | 23.31 | <0.0001 | ||
| Interior |
| 19.8 | 2.17 | 9.15 | <0.0001 | 0.97 |
|
| 29.9 | 6.75 | 4.42 | <0.0001 | ||
|
| 229.0 | 9.71 | 23.59 | <0.0001 | ||
| Mature grapefruit grove | ||||||
| Perimeter |
| 1.19 | 0.06 | 18.47 | <0.0001 | 0.99 |
|
| 22.7 | 3.61 | 6.28 | <0.0001 | ||
|
| 221.1 | 4.78 | 46.21 | <0.0001 | ||
| Adjacent |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| Interior |
| 0.35 | 0.02 | 16.39 | <0.0001 | 0.98 |
|
| 25.3 | 4.09 | 6.18 | <0.0001 | ||
|
| 219.8 | 5.63 | 39.04 | <0.0001 | ||
* Parameters could not be estimated using a sigmoid function.
Spatial niche selection indices for D. citri adults in three habitat types in commercial citrus groves in South Texas (2009–2012).
Habitat types are represented by perimeter, adjacent and interior trees.
| Habitat | Proportion of trees available (No. of trees) | Mean No. of | Selection index | Standardized selection index ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grapefruit in area-wide surveys (2009–2010) | ||||
| Perimeter | 0.117 (146) | 0.36 | 6.38 (2.71–10.1) a | 0.608 |
| Adjacent | 0.110 (138) | 0.30 | 3.80 (0.26–7.34) ab | 0.358 |
| Interior | 0.773 (966) | 0.13 | 0.22 (0.0–0.49) b | 0.034 |
| χ2 = 34.25, | ||||
| Sweet orange in area-wide surveys (2009–2010) | ||||
| Perimeter | 0.104 (156) | 0.48 | 6.58 (3.44–9.71) a | 0.585 |
| Adjacent | 0.097 (148) | 0.30 | 4.19 (1.10–7.30) a | 0.389 |
| Interior | 0.797 (1196) | 0.13 | 0.16 (0.0–0.40) b | 0.026 |
| χ2 = 53.43, | ||||
| Young grapefruit grove in field experiments (2012) | ||||
| Perimeter | 0.19 (102) | 9.17 | 4.31 (4.23–4.40) a | 0.893 |
| Adjacent | 0.18 (99) | 3.38 | 0.31 (0.26–0.36) b | 0.064 |
| Interior | 0.63 (341) | 1.77 | 0.21 (0.19–0.23) c | 0.043 |
| χ2 = 158.0, | ||||
| Mature grapefruit grove in field experiments (2012) | ||||
| Perimeter | 0.31 (72) | 0.08 | 2.52 (1.95–3.08) a | 0.796 |
| Adjacent | 0.27 (62) | 0.04 | 0.35 (0.0–0.81) b | 0.111 |
| Interior | 0.42 (98) | 0.02 | 0.30 (0.0–0.63) b | 0.094 |
| χ2 = 158.0, | ||||
1 W i = selection index of D. citri; Selection indices followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05 (log-likelihood ratio [G] test).
2 B = standardized selection index for D. citri; standardized selection indices of (1/number of habitats), or 0.33 in this case, indicate no preference. Values above 0.33 indicate relative preference, and values below 0.33 indicate relative avoidance.
Fig 5Contour maps of D. citri adults caught on ACP-traps deployed at different positions in young and mature grapefruit groves in a field study (TAMUK-Citrus Center, 2012).