Literature DB >> 32016141

Data on winged insect dynamics in melon crops in southeastern France.

Alexandra Schoeny1, Patrick Gognalons1.   

Abstract

This article displays insect count data obtained in eleven field trials conducted between 2010 and 2019 in southeastern France. Winged insect abundances were monitored daily within melon crops during 8-11 weeks in May-July using a suction trap or a yellow pan trap. Aphids were identified under a stereomicroscope. In total, 29,709 winged aphids belonging to 216 taxa and 151,061 other flying insects were caught. Among possible uses, these data can populate larger multisite studies or larger time series investigating aphid community variations. They can also feed generic studies exploring temporal dependencies or species assemblages. They can stimulate new collaborations with entomologists keen on implementing molecular tools or taxonomic expertise on a large specimen collection.
© 2020 The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aphid communities; Biodiversity; Insect sampling; Species composition and population dynamic; Suction trap; Taxonomic identification; Temporal pattern of flight activity; Yellow pan trap

Year:  2020        PMID: 32016141      PMCID: PMC6992952          DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2020.105132

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Data Brief        ISSN: 2352-3409


Specifications Table These daily abundances are useful to characterize and compare the temporal patterns of 206 aphid taxa visiting melon plants cultivated in one geographical area (Avignon) during eight cropping seasons. These data can benefit other scientists keen to add Avignon datasets in a multisite analysis focusing on a particular aphid taxon or interested in species richness and diversity. They can also populate larger time series investigating community assemblage variations in a context of climate change for instance. The data can feed generic studies exploring temporal dependencies or species assemblages. The data can be useful to compare different insect trapping methods and could stimulate other teams to develop the suction trap described in this paper. Most data correspond to stored specimens that could be shared with entomologists interested in the taxonomic identification of non-aphid taxa, or the implementation of molecular tools to genotype a given taxon or identify a particular gene (insecticide resistance for instance).

Data

Table 1 presents the melon crop details for each of the 11 field trials: location, date of planting, trial area, number of plants, number of rows, number of plants per row, row spacing and plant spacing.
Table 1

Melon crop details for field trials conducted in Avignon between 2010 and 2019.

Trial codeExperimental sitePlanting dateTrial area (m2)Number of plantsNumber of rowsNumber of plants per rowRow spacing (m)Plant spacing (m)
M10St Paul28/05/201025616082020.8
V11St Paul09/05/2011a12012062020.5
V12St Paul11/05/2012a15015062520.5
V13St Paul06/05/2013a15015062520.5
P11St Paul24/05/201115620816131.50.5
P12St Paul31/05/201218024016151.50.5
P13St Paul24/05/201318024016151.50.5
P14St Paul27/05/201418024016151.50.5
P15St Paul28/05/201518024016151.50.5
M18St Maurice25/05/20181201608201.50.5
M19St Maurice28/05/20191201608201.50.5

Agryl P17 fleece removal; fleece optimizes plant growth by increasing both air and soil temperatures and reducing wind damage.

Melon crop details for field trials conducted in Avignon between 2010 and 2019. Agryl P17 fleece removal; fleece optimizes plant growth by increasing both air and soil temperatures and reducing wind damage. Table 2 presents the 216 aphid taxa recorded during the insect monitoring conducted in Avignon between 2010 and 2019.
Table 2

List of aphid taxa recorded during the 2010–2019 monitoring and their corresponding INRA or Rothamsted Insect Survey (RIS) codes.

Taxon nameTaxon code
Acyrthosiphon caraganaeRIS-755
Acyrthosiphon lotiRIS-381
Acyrthosiphon malvaeRIS-382
Acyrthosiphon pisumRIS-389
Acyrthosiphon primulaeRIS-392
Acyrthosiphon sppRIS-1014
Adelges sppRIS-2065
Amphorophora rubiRIS-468
Anoecia corniRIS-480
Anoecia sppRIS-1012
Anuraphis farfaraeRIS-238
Anuraphis sppRIS-1015
Anuraphis subterraneaRIS-239
Aphis (Protaphis) anuraphoidesINRA-001
Aphis (Protaphis) sppRIS-1064
Aphis (Protaphis) terricolaINRA-002
Aphis armoraciaeINRA-003
Aphis craccivoraRIS-163
Aphis fabaeRIS-132
Aphis gossypiiRIS-181
Aphis nasturtiiRIS-152
Aphis neriiRIS-787
Aphis pomiRIS-153
Aphis salicariaeRIS-142
Aphis sambuciRIS-125
Aphis sppRIS-1005
Aphis verbasciRIS-197
Aploneura lentisciRIS-530
Appendiseta robiniaeRIS-793
Aspidaphis adjuvansRIS-260
Atheroides serrulatusRIS-59
Aulacorthum solaniRIS-376
Aulacorthum speyeriRIS-377
Baizongia pistaceaeRIS-531
Betulaphis quadrituberculataRIS-84
Brachycaudus carduiRIS-241
Brachycaudus helichrysiRIS-243
Brachycaudus populiRIS-747
Brachycaudus rumexicolensRIS-253
Brachycaudus schwartziRIS-745
Brachycaudus sediRIS-254
Brachycaudus sppRIS-1016
Brachycaudus tragopogonisRIS-252
Brachycolus cucubaliRIS-262
Brevicoryne brassicaeRIS-264
Calaphis flavaRIS-82
Callipterinella minutissimaRIS-80
Capitophorus carduinusRIS-341
Capitophorus elaeagniRIS-342
Capitophorus hippophaesRIS-343
Capitophorus horniRIS-344
Capitophorus similisRIS-346
Capitophorus sppRIS-1018
Cavariella aegopodiiRIS-292
Cavariella archangelicaeRIS-293
Cavariella sppRIS-1046
Cavariella theobaldiRIS-298
Ceruraphis eriophoriRIS-211
Chaetosiphon fragaefoliiRIS-287
Chaetosiphon tetrarhodumRIS-289
Chaitophorus leucomelasRIS-50
Chaitophorus populetiRIS-45
Chaitophorus populialbaeRIS-46
Chaitophorus salictiRIS-47
Chaitophorus sppRIS-1002
Chromaphis juglandicolaRIS-61
Chromaphis sppRIS-1078
Clethrobius comesRIS-87
Coloradoa rufomaculataRIS-280
Coloradoa sppRIS-1020
Coloradoa tanacetinaRIS-281
Corylobium avellanaeRIS-403
Cryptomyzus ribisRIS-340
Ctenocallis setosusRIS-77
Diuraphis (Holcaphis) sppRIS-1502
Diuraphis muehleiRIS-259
Diuraphis noxiaRIS-809
Drepanosiphum platanoidisRIS-91
Dysaphis plantagineaRIS-234
Dysaphis pyriRIS-235
Dysaphis sppRIS-1006
Ericaphis ericaeRIS-284
Eriosoma lanigerumRIS-497
Eriosoma sppRIS-1010
Eriosoma ulmiRIS-500
Essigella californicaINRA-005
Essigella sppRIS-1518
Eucallipterus tiliaeRIS-70
Eucarazzia elegansRIS-768
Euceraphis punctipennisRIS-88
Forda formicariaRIS-527
Geoica setulosaRIS-532
Geoica sppRIS-1055
Hayhurstia atriplicisRIS-261
Hayhurstia sppRIS-1022
Hoplocallis pictusRIS-772
Hyadaphis coriandriRIS-808
Hyadaphis foeniculiRIS-271
Hyadaphis sppRIS-1023
Hyalopteroides humilisRIS-276
Hyalopterus pruniRIS-110
Hyalopterus sppRIS-1065
Hyperomyzus lactucaeRIS-358
Hyperomyzus lampsanaeRIS-359
Hyperomyzus pallidusRIS-360
Hyperomyzus picridisRIS-362
Hyperomyzus sppRIS-1007
Illinoia goldamaryaeRIS-475
Lipaphis erysimiRIS-267
Macchiatiella rhamniINRA-007
Macrosiphoniella absinthiiRIS-451
Macrosiphoniella oblongaRIS-461
Macrosiphoniella persequensRIS-462
Macrosiphoniella sanborniRIS-456
Macrosiphoniella sppRIS-1027
Macrosiphoniella tapuskaeRIS-732
Macrosiphum euphorbiaeRIS-410
Macrosiphum rosaeRIS-416
Macrosiphum sppRIS-1009
Megoura viciaeRIS-470
Melanaphis bambusaeRIS-811
Melanaphis luzulellaRIS-122
Melanaphis pyrariaRIS-727
Metopolophium albidumRIS-395
Metopolophium dirhodumRIS-396
Metopolophium festucaeRIS-397
Metopolophium frisicumRIS-398
Metopolophium sppRIS-1008
Microlophium sppRIS-2014
Mimeuria ulmiphilaRIS-510
Mindarus abietinusRIS-491
Monelliopsis caryaeRIS-801
Myzocallis castanicolaRIS-63
Myzocallis coryliRIS-64
Myzocallis komarekiINRA-009
Myzocallis occidentalisINRA-010
Myzocallis sppRIS-1003
Myzotoxoptera sppRIS-1077
Myzotoxoptera wimshurstaeRIS-364
Myzus cerasiRIS-312
Myzus ligustriRIS-320
Myzus lythriRIS-314
Myzus ornatusRIS-315
Myzus persicaeRIS-322
Myzus sppRIS-1030
Myzus variansRIS-740
Nasonovia pilosellaeRIS-354
Nasonovia ribisnigriRIS-355
Nasonovia sppRIS-1011
Nearctaphis bakeriRIS-733
Ovatus insitusRIS-303
Ovatus sppRIS-1025
Paracletus cimiciformisRIS-525
Pemphigus sppRIS-1506
Phorodon cannabisRIS-812
Phorodon humuliRIS-308
Phylloxera sppRIS-2003
Pleotrichophorus glandulosusRIS-350
Pseudacaudella rubidaRIS-275
Pterocallis alniRIS-75
Rhodobium porosumRIS-401
Rhopalomyzus poaeRIS-309
Rhopalosiphoninus ribesinusRIS-367
Rhopalosiphum insertumRIS-111
Rhopalosiphum maidisRIS-112
Rhopalosiphum nymphaeaeRIS-113
Rhopalosiphum padiRIS-114
Rhopalosiphum rufiabdominaleRIS-2009
Rhopalosiphum rufulumRIS-739
Rhopalosiphum sppRIS-1045
Schizaphis graminumRIS-116
Schizaphis palustrisRIS-115
Schizaphis pilipesRIS-750
Schizaphis scirpiRIS-121
Semiaphis dauciRIS-728
Semiaphis sppRIS-1088
Sipha elegansRIS-52
Sipha maydisRIS-54
Sitobion avenaeRIS-420
Sitobion fragariaeRIS-421
Sitobion sppRIS-1031
Smynthurodes betaeRIS-526
Staegeriella necopinataRIS-273
Subsaltusaphis pictaRIS-738
Taiwanaphis sppINRA-012
Takecallis arundicolensRIS-72
Takecallis arundinariaeRIS-73
Takecallis taiwanusRIS-74
Tetraneura nigriabdominalisRIS-2008
Tetraneura sppRIS-1037
Tetraneura ulmiRIS-503
Thelaxes dryophilaRIS-490
Thelaxes sppRIS-1038
Therioaphis luteolaRIS-92
Therioaphis ononidisRIS-93
Therioaphis riehmiRIS-731
Therioaphis sppRIS-1039
Therioaphis trifoliiRIS-94
Tinocallis kahawaluokalaniRIS-795
Tinocallis takachihoensisRIS-797
Tuberculatus (Tuberculoides) sppRIS-1024
Tuberculatus annulatusRIS-68
Tuberculatus borealisRIS-758
Tuberculatus neglectusRIS-759
Tuberculatus querceusRIS-69
Tuberolachnus salignusRIS-23
Uroleucon (Uroleucon) sppINRA-015
Uroleucon (Uromelan) sppRIS-1504
Uroleucon ambrosiaeINRA-013
Uroleucon compositaeINRA-014
Uroleucon erigeronenseRIS-763
Uroleucon tussilaginisRIS-439
Utamphorophora humboldtiRIS-751
Wahlgreniella nervataRIS-782
Wahlgreniella sppRIS-1042
Wahlgreniella vacciniiRIS-479
List of aphid taxa recorded during the 2010–2019 monitoring and their corresponding INRA or Rothamsted Insect Survey (RIS) codes. Table 3 presents a summary of airborne insect monitoring in 11 field trials conducted in Avignon between 2010 and 2019. In total, 29,709 winged aphids and 151,061 other flying insects were caught. According to the dataset, the abundance of winged aphids varied between 431 and 4206; the abundance of other flying insects varied between 1169 and 23,139. Per dataset, aphids represented between 5 and 35% of the catch. Between 35 and 107 aphid taxa were recorded per dataset. A small proportion of aphids (0.3–2.5% per dataset) could not be assigned to a taxon because of i) limit of taxonomic expertise, ii) loss during storage, or iii) damage during trapping.
Table 3

Summary of airborne insect monitoring in 11 field trials conducted in Avignon between 2010 and 2019.

Dataset codeTrial codeTrapping methodMonitoring period (days)Number of winged aphidsNumber of other flying insectsRatio aphids/total catch (%)Number of aphid taxa identifiedNumber of aphids not assigned to a taxona
M10M10Suction64353214 8711910781
V11V11Suction74312816 423169213
V12V12Suction66420623 1391595106
V13V13Suction80299813 488189917
P11P11Suction65330617 924169119
P12P12Suction56360211 499247557
P13P13Suction621848757120805
P14P14Suction591457934613627
P15P15Suction5622457825225118
P15YP15Yellow pan56518116931358
M18M18Suction5578615 6605814
M18YM18Yellow pan55431213217495
M19M19Suction5883584769766
M19YM19Yellow pan58817153835527
MIN5543111695354
MAX80420623 13935107106
TOTAL29 709151 061

Aphids that could not be identified because of i) limit of taxonomic expertise, ii) loss during storage, or iii) damage during trapping.

Summary of airborne insect monitoring in 11 field trials conducted in Avignon between 2010 and 2019. Aphids that could not be identified because of i) limit of taxonomic expertise, ii) loss during storage, or iii) damage during trapping. Fig. 1 illustrates the main trapping method used to monitor winged insects in each of the 11 trials (suction trap).
Fig. 1

Suction trap used to monitor winged insects in eleven field trials conducted in Avignon between 2010 and 2019. (A) In situ in a melon crop (Photo credit: Alexandra Schoeny, INRAE) (B) Schematic representation of a suction trap adapted from Pascal et al., 2013 [2] showing its operating principle and its different parts: ➊ vacuum chamber, ➋ air extractor, ➌ insect collector, ➍ collecting pot, ➎ chimney rain cap.

Suction trap used to monitor winged insects in eleven field trials conducted in Avignon between 2010 and 2019. (A) In situ in a melon crop (Photo credit: Alexandra Schoeny, INRAE) (B) Schematic representation of a suction trap adapted from Pascal et al., 2013 [2] showing its operating principle and its different parts: ➊ vacuum chamber, ➋ air extractor, ➌ insect collector, ➍ collecting pot, ➎ chimney rain cap. Fig. 2 illustrates a complementary trapping method (yellow pan trap) used in three of the 11 trials.
Fig. 2

Yellow pan trap used to monitor winged insects in three of the eleven field trials conducted in Avignon between 2010 and 2019 (Photo credit: Alexandra Schoeny, INRAE).

Yellow pan trap used to monitor winged insects in three of the eleven field trials conducted in Avignon between 2010 and 2019 (Photo credit: Alexandra Schoeny, INRAE).

Experimental design, materials, and methods

Field experiments Eleven field experiments were conducted between 2010 and 2019 at INRAE Avignon, southeastern France: nine at St Paul experimental station (43°54′53N, 4°52′59E) and two at St Maurice experimental station (43°56′49N, 4°51′52E) (Table 1). The two sites are approximately 4 km apart and surrounded by a highly diversified environment consisting of discontinuous urban fabric, commercial units, arable land, permanent crops (vineyards, fruit trees, olive groves), pastures and mixed forest, according to CORINE land cover nomenclature [1]. The experimental design consisted of a Charentais-type melon crop which layout varied according to trials (Table 1). Seedlings were prepared in an insect-proof greenhouse three weeks before planting. Depending on the trial, plants at the 1–3 leaf stage were planted in late April or late May on dark brown plastic mulch with drip irrigation. Early plantings were protected from wind damage with Agryl P17 fleece (Fiberweb France, Biesheim) for 11–15 days. The crop comprised 120 to 240 plants (0.5–0.8 m plant spacing) organized in 6–16 rows (1.5–2 m row spacing) depending on the trial. No insecticides were applied during trials. Insect trapping and winged aphid identification A non-biased suction trap was designed to sample winged insects daily at the crop height [2]. It is made up of a vacuum chamber generating a downward suction, an air extractor (400 m3/h, 160B model, France Air), an insect collector and a chimney rain cap (Fig. 1). The insect collector is inserted in the vacuum chamber. Small insects flying above the vacuum chamber opening are catched and dragged in a collecting pot containing 100 ml of water with 5 μl/l detergent (Teepol 610 S, ref 86350, Sigma-Aldrich) to break the surface tension and prevent insects from escaping. Each trial was equipped with a suction trap set up in the melon crop. The trap runned daily for a 12-h sequence (8:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m.) thanks to a timer. The collecting pot was changed daily before the start of the trapping. For three of the 11 field trials, winged insects were also sampled with a yellow pan trap (model FLORA cultures basses, ref 058501, SigneNature) placed at 2–3 m from the suction trap (Fig. 2). The trap was filled with 1 l of water with 5 μl/l detergent and changed daily at 8:00 a.m. Airborne insect monitoring started at crop planting or fleece removal to avoid bias caused by a possible visual repellent effect of the fleece on winged aphid behaviour. Depending on the trial, it was carried out for 55–80 days. Catches were collected daily, rinsed with tap water and stored in 70% ethanol until sorting (aphids vs other insects) and taxonomic identification (aphids only) under a stereomicroscope. Aphids were identified based on morphological characteristics using several dichotomous keys [[3], [4], [5]] and counted. Individuals which could not be identified to species were grouped at genus level. Whenever possible, aphid species/genera were associated with their Rothamsted Insect Survey (RIS) codes (Table 2). For aphid taxa not yet referenced in the RIS system, INRA codes were assigned.

Specifications Table

SubjectAgricultural and Biological Sciences
Specific subject areaEntomology
Type of dataTables and figures
How data were acquiredWinged aphids were identified under a stereomicroscope using taxonomic keys.
Data formatRaw and summarized
Parameters for data collectionEleven field experiments were conducted between 2010 and 2019. Winged insects were monitored daily within melon crops during 8–11 weeks in May–July.
Description of data collectionWinged insects were sampled at the crop height with a suction trap placed in the crop. For three of the trials, an additional sampling was carried out with a yellow pan trap. Both types of catches were collected daily, rinsed and stored in 70% ethanol until sorting (aphids vs other insects) and taxonomic identification of aphids under a stereomicroscope.
Data source locationINRAE St Paul experimental station, Avignon, France43°54′53N, 4°52′59E43.9147222, 4.8830555INRAE St Maurice experimental station, Montfavet Avignon, France43°56′49N, 4°51′52E43.9469444, 4.8644444
Data accessibilitySummarized data are hosted with the article.Raw data are hosted in a public repositoryRepository name: Data INRAE (Dataverse)Data identification number: 10.15454/NKRWEODirect URL to data: https://doi.org/10.15454/NKRWEO
Value of the Data

These daily abundances are useful to characterize and compare the temporal patterns of 206 aphid taxa visiting melon plants cultivated in one geographical area (Avignon) during eight cropping seasons.

These data can benefit other scientists keen to add Avignon datasets in a multisite analysis focusing on a particular aphid taxon or interested in species richness and diversity. They can also populate larger time series investigating community assemblage variations in a context of climate change for instance.

The data can feed generic studies exploring temporal dependencies or species assemblages.

The data can be useful to compare different insect trapping methods and could stimulate other teams to develop the suction trap described in this paper.

Most data correspond to stored specimens that could be shared with entomologists interested in the taxonomic identification of non-aphid taxa, or the implementation of molecular tools to genotype a given taxon or identify a particular gene (insecticide resistance for instance).

  2 in total

1.  Can Winged Aphid Abundance Be a Predictor of Cucurbit Aphid-Borne Yellows Virus Epidemics in Melon Crop?

Authors:  Alexandra Schoeny; Loup Rimbaud; Patrick Gognalons; Grégory Girardot; Pauline Millot; Karine Nozeran; Catherine Wipf-Scheibel; Hervé Lecoq
Journal:  Viruses       Date:  2020-08-20       Impact factor: 5.048

2.  Aphis gossypii/Aphis frangulae collected worldwide: Microsatellite markers data and genetic cluster assignment.

Authors:  Pascale Mistral; Flavie Vanlerberghe-Masutti; Sonia Elbelt; Nathalie Boissot
Journal:  Data Brief       Date:  2021-03-18
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.