| Literature DB >> 28575085 |
Isabel Valenzuela1, Piotr Trebicki2, Kevin S Powell3, Jessica Vereijssen4, Sorn Norng5, Alan L Yen1,6.
Abstract
Piercing-sucking insects are vectors of plant pathogens, and an understanding of their feeding behaviour is crucial for studies on insect population dynamics and pathogen spread. This study examines probing behaviour of the eggplant psyllid, Acizzia solanicola (Hemiptera: Psyllidae), using the electrical penetration graph (EPG) technique, on two widespread and common hosts: eggplant (Solanum melongena) and tobacco bush (S. mauritianum). Six EPG waveforms were observed: waveform NP (non-probing phase), waveform C (pathway phase), G (feeding activities in xylem tissues), D (first contact with phloem tissues), E1 (salivation in the sieve elements) and E2 (ingestion from phloem tissues). Results showed that A. solanicola is predominantly a phloem feeder and time spent in salivation and ingestion phases (E1 and E2) differed between hosts. Feeding was enhanced on eggplant compared to tobacco bush which showed some degree of resistance, as evidenced by shorter periods of phloem ingestion, a higher propensity to return to the pathway phase once in the sieve elements and higher number of salivation events on tobacco bush. We discuss how prolonged phloem feeding could indicate the potential for A. solanicola to become an important pest of eggplant and potential pathogen vector.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28575085 PMCID: PMC5456099 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178609
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Summary of main characteristics of Acizzia solanicola EPG waveforms and putative correlations of stylet tip position in plant tissue.
| EPG waveform | Frequency (Hz) | Voltage level | Stylet tips in plant tissue | Putative activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n/a | Extracellular | Not in plant tissue | Non-probing | |
| 15–19 | Extracellular | Parenchyma | Salivary sheath secretion and other stylet pathway activity | |
| 6–7 | Extracellular | Xylem | Ingestion | |
| 1 and 4 | Extracellular to intracellular | Phloem | First contact with sieve elements | |
| 5–9 | Intracellular | Phloem | Salivation | |
| 6–10 | Intracellular | Phloem | Ingestion |
1 Frequency is shown as a range of values from 12 (G waveform) and 23 (C, D, E1 and E2 waveforms) insects on eggplants and was calculated based on the average of 3 observations/insect/waveform in different points of an 8 hr recording for each waveform.
2 Each waveform D changed frequency from 4 Hz at the beginning of the waveform to 1 Hz at the end of the waveform.
3 The position of the stylet tips in plant tissue and the probing activity was not determined in this study. Data shown were extracted from [23].
Fig 1Waveforms produced by Acizzia solanicola on eggplant.
(A) overview of 1 h recording period showing non-penetration (NP) and waveforms C and G. (B) overview of 1 h recording period showing waveforms D, E1 and E2. (C) traces of waveform C in 15 s overview. (D) traces of waveform G in 5 s overview. (E) traces of waveform D in 30 s overview. (F) traces of waveform E1 in 5 s overview. (G) traces of waveform E2 in 5 s overview. Refer to Table 1 for explanation of putative stylet tip position in plant tissue for each waveform.
Fig 2A kinetogram of Acizzia solanicola probing behaviour on eggplant and tobacco bush.
Waveform types are enclosed in star symbol while values near the arrows are the probabilities of one waveform occurring after another (n = 23 and n = 20 on eggplants and tobacco bush respectively).
Number of Acizzia solanicola that produced a particular waveform type (n = 23 and n = 20 on eggplant and tobacco bush respectively).
| Number (percentage) of | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Host | NP | C | D | E1 | E2 | G |
| Eggplant | 23/23 (100) | 23/23 (100) | 23/23 (100) | 23/23 (100) | 23/23 (100) | 12/23 (52) |
| Tobacco bush | 20/20 (100) | 20/20 (100) | 19/20 (95) | 19/20 (95) | 19/20 (95) | 9/20 (45) |
Percentage probing spend in EPG waveforms of Acizzia solanicola on eggplant and tobacco bush (mean, n = 23 and n = 20 on eggplant and tobacco bush respectively).
| Percentage of probing spend in each waveform type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Host | C | D | E1 | E2 | Sustained E2 | G |
| Eggplant | 22.3 | 0.4 | 2.9 (15.3) | 62.8 | 87.3 | 11.5 (23.7) |
| Tobacco bush | 30.9 | 0.9 | 9.0 (29.7) | 55.6 | 63.2 | 3.6 (20.0) |
| LSD (5%), (H-statistics) | 11.00 | 0.29 | 14.06 | 16.20 | 18.10 | 0.92 |
| F-test probability, (Chi-square probability) | 0.120 | 0.001 | <0.001 | 0.371 | 0.010 | 0.301 |
1 Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA was calculated for variables percentage of probing spend in E1 and G. In these two cases we report the raw mean followed by the mean rank in parentheses, as well as H-statistics and Chi-square probability.
2 sustained E2 is E2>10 min
Fig 3Boxplots representing percentage probing spend in each waveform of A. solanicola (n = 23 and n = 20 on eggplants and tobacco bush respectively).
Number of EPG waveforms of Acizzia solanicola on eggplant and tobacco bush (mean, n = 23 and n = 20 on eggplant and tobacco bush respectively).
| Number of waveform events per psyllid | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Host | NP | C | D | E1 | Single E1 | E2 | G |
| Eggplant | 12.6 (15.2) | 13.9 (14.8) | 2.0 (14.8) | 2.4 (14.1) | 0.3 (13.4) | 1.9 (16.1) | 1.0 (23.6) |
| Tobacco bush | 28.2 (29.9) | 32.1 (30.2) | 5.3 (30.2) | 9.8 (31.1) | 3.1 (31.9) | 6.3 (28.8) | 0.6 (20.2) |
| LSD (0.05), (H-statistics) | 14.71 | 15.95 | 15.95 | 19.53 | 23.13 | 10.97 | 0.81 |
| F-test probability, (Chi-square probability) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.325 |
1 Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA was calculated for all waveforms. We report the raw mean followed by the mean rank in parentheses, as well as H-statistics and Chi-square probability.
2 Single E1s are E1s not followed by E2.
Duration of EPG waveforms of Acizzia solanicola on eggplant and tobacco bush (mean, n = 23 and n = 20 on eggplant and tobacco bush respectively).
| Duration of waveform events per psyllid (seconds) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Host | NP | C | D | E1 | E2 | G | Total duration of E1 | Total duration of E2 |
| Eggplant | 2.715 (517) | 2.508 (321) | 1.617 (40) | 2.366 (231) | 3.740 (5471) | 1.690 (49) | 2.693 (494) | 3. 978 (9508) |
| Tobacco bush | 2.585 (383) | 2.210 (161) | 1.438 (27) | 2.138 (137) | 3.180 (1510) | 1.310 (20) | 3.004 (1009) | 3.814 (6523) |
| LSD (0.05), (H-statistics) | 0.244 | 0.116 | 0.162 | 0.236 | 0.453 | 0.993 | 0.35 | 0.46 |
| F-test probability, (Chi-square probability) | 0.287 | <0.001 | 0.031 | 0.058 | 0.017 | 0.446 | 0.083 | 0.481 |
1 All values were log transformed for analysis of variance. The values given are the log transformed means followed by the back-transformed means in parentheses.
Fig 4Boxplots representing number of waveforms of A. solanicola (n = 23 and n = 20 on eggplants and tobacco bush respectively).
Fig 5Boxplots representing duration of waveforms of A. solanicola (n = 23 and n = 20 on eggplants and tobacco bush respectively).
Sequential EPG parameters of Acizzia solanicola on eggplant and tobacco bush (mean, n = 23 and n = 20 on eggplant and tobacco bush respectively).
| Sequential EPG parameters | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Host | Number of probes before 1st E1 | Number of probes after 1st E1 | Time to 1st probe from start of EPG (seconds) | Time from 1st probe to 1st E1 (seconds) | Time from 1st probe to 1st E2 (seconds) | Time from 1st probe to 1st sustained E2 (seconds) |
| Eggplant | 8 (23) | 4 (15) | 2.059 (114) | 3.839 (6906) | 3.893 (7819) | 3.908 (8089) |
| Tobacco bush | 8 (21) | 19 (30) | 2.675 (474) | 3.528 (3375) | 3.855 (7164) | 3.884 (7662) |
| LSD (0.05), (H-statistics) | 0.27 | 15.95 | 0.54 | 0.29 | 0.20 | 0.21 |
| F-test probability, (Chi-square probability) | 0.600 | <0.001 | 0.044 | 0.040 | 0.708 | 0.824 |
1 All values were log transformed for analysis of variance except for variables; number of probes before 1st E1 and number of probes after 1st E1. In these two cases a Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA was conducted where we report the raw mean followed by the mean rank in parentheses, as well as H-statistics and Chi-square probability. For the remainder variables a standard ANOVA was carried out where we report log transformed means followed by back-transformed means in parentheses.
Fig 6Boxplots representing sequential waveforms of A. solanicola (n = 23 and n = 20 on eggplants and tobacco bush respectively).