Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Potato leafroll virus spread in differentially resistant potato cultivars under varying aphid densities

  • Published:
American Potato Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An action threshold of 3-10 green peach aphid,Myzus persicae (Sulzer), apterae per 100 lower leaves is recommended for use in Minnesota to prevent further spread of potato leafroll virus (PLRV) in potato,Solarium tuberosum L. This threshold was first developed and validated using the PLRV susceptible cultivar Russet Burbank. Here we report experiments to determine if higher aphid densities could be tolerated in PLRV resistant cultivars,i.e., Kennebec (moderately resistant) or Cascade (highly resistant), without an increase in PLRV infection. Insecticidal sprays were applied to plots when predetermined target aphid densities, based on number of apterae per 100 leaves, were reached: 3, 10, 30, and 100 (Russet Burbank); 10, 30, 100, and 300 (Kennebec); and 30, 100, 300, and 1000 (Cascade). The response variable was the average percentage of PLRV infected plants. Overall mean cumulative aphid-days and percent PLRV infection were 617 and 23.5% for Russet Burbank, 1,296 and 10.2% for Kennebec, and 4,816 and 9.5% for Cascade. For each cultivar, the highest target aphid density tolerated without an increase in PLRV spread was determined by comparing PLRV infection in plots sprayed on predetermined thresholds to PLRV infection in plots where aphids were rigorously controlled. This maximum density was 10 apterae per 100 leaves for Russet Burbank and 300 apterae per 100 leaves for Cascade. Results using Kennebec were ambiguous, but Kennebec was always more resistant to PLRV than Russet Burbank. Excised leaflet tests showed that the cultivars did not differ in resistance to green peach aphid. It appears that action thresholds based on green peach aphid apterae can be different depending upon the inherent PLRV-resistance of the cultivar.

Compendio

Se recomienda la actividad de un mínimo de 3-10 áfidos verdes del melocotonero,Myzus persicae (Sulzer), ápteros por 100 hojas inferiores, a utilizarse en Minnesota para prevenir una mayor diseminación del virus del enrollamiento de la hoja (PLRV) en la papa,Solanum tuberosum L. Este mínimo se desarrollo y evaluó primero utilizando el cultivar Russet Burbank, susceptible al PLRV. Reportamos aquí los experimentos para determinar si densidades mayores del áfido podrían ser toleradas en cultivares resistentes al PLRV, tales como Kennebec (moderadamente resistente) o Cascade (altamente resistente), sin un incremento en la infección por el virus. Se aplicaron aspersiones de insecticidas a parcelas donde se alcanzaron densidades-meta predeterminadas de áfidos, en base al número de ápteros por 100 hojas: 3, 10, 30y 100 (Russet Burbank); 10, 30, 100 y 300 (Kennebec); y 30, 100, 300 y 1,000 (Cascade). La variable de respuesta fue el porcentaje promedio de plantas infectadas con PLRV. El promedio general acumulado de áfidos-días y el porcentaje de infección con PLRV fueron 6l7 y 23.5% para Russet Burbank, 1,296 y 10.2% para Kennebec, y 4,816 con 9.5% para Cascade. Para cada cultivar, se determinó la densidad-meta más alta de áfidos tolerada sin un incremento en la diseminación del PLRV comparando la infección con PLRV en las parcelas asperjadas sobre los mínimos predeterminados con la infección con PLRV en las parcelas donde los áfidos fueron rigurosamente controlados. Esta densidad máxima fue de 10 ápteros por 100 hojas para Russet Burbank y 300 ápteros por 100 hojas para Cascade. Los resultados con Kennebec fueron ambiguos, pero este cultivar fue siempre más resistente al PLRV que Russet Burbank. Pruebas con foliolos removidos mostraron que los cultivares no difirieron en su resistencia al áfido verde del melocotonero. Parece que la actividad mínima basada en los ápteros del áfido verde del melocotonero puede ser diferente dependiendo de la resistencia al PLRV inherente del cultivar.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  1. Bacon, O.G., V.E. Burton, D.L. McLean, R.H. James, W.D. Riley, K.G. Baghott and M.G. Kinsey. 1976. Control of the green peach aphid and its effect on the incidence of potato leafroll virus. J Econ Entomol 69:410–414.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bagnali, R.H. and G.C.C. Tai. 1986. Potato leafroll virus: evaluation of resistance in potato cultivars. Plant Dis 70:621–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barker, H. 1987. Multiple components of the resistance of potatoes to potato leafroll virus. Ann Appl Biol 111:641–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barker, H. and B.D. Harrison., 1986. Restricted distribution of potato leafroll virus antigen in resistant potato genotypes and its effect on transmission of the virus by aphids. Ann Appl Biol 109:595–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Boiteau, G. and R.H. Parry. 1985. Monitoring inflights of green peach aphids,Myzus persicae (Sulzer), in New Brunswick potato fields by yellow pans from 1974 to 1983: results and degree-day simulation. Am Potato J 62:489–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bradley, R.H.E. 1954. Studies of the mechanism of transmission of potato virus Y by the green peach aphid,Myzus persicae (Sulz.) (Homoptera: Aphididae). Can J Zool 32:64- 73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Broadbent, L. 1950. The correlation of aphid numbers with the spread of leafroll and rugose mosaic in potato crops. Ann Appl Biol 37:58–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cancelado, R.E. and E.B. Radcliffe. 1979. Action thresholds for green peach aphid on potatoes in Minnesota. J Econ Entomol 72:606–609.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Clark, M.F. and A.N. Adams. 1977. Characteristics of the microplate method of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of plant viruses. J Gen Virol 34:475- 483.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Daiber, K.C. 1991. Injurious insects and nematodes on potatoes in southern Africa. — A review of 50 years research. J Plant Dis Prot 98:268–280.

    Google Scholar 

  11. DiFonzo, CD. 1993. Action thresholds for the green peach aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae), a vector of potato leafroll virus, in differentially resistant cultivars. M.S. Thesis, University of Minnesota, St. Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Flanders, K.L., D.W. Ragsdale and E.B. Radcliffe. 1990. Use of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect potato leafroll virus in field grown potato, cv. Russet Burbank. Am Potato J 67:589–602.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Flanders, K.L., E.B. Radcliffe and D.W. Ragsdale. 1991. Potato leafroll virus spread in relation to densities of green peach aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae): Implications for management thresholds for Minnesota seed potatoes. J Econ Entomol 84:1028–1036.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hanafi, A., E.B. Radcliffe and D.W. Ragsdale. 1989. Spread and control of potato leafroll virus in Minnesota. J Econ Entomol 84:1201–1206.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hanafi, A., E. B. Radcliffe, and D.W. Ragsdale. 1994. Spread and control of potato leafroll virus in the Souss Valley of Morocco. Crop Protection. In Press.

  16. Harrison, B.D. 1971. Potato viruses in Britain, pp. 123-159.In: J.H. Western [ed.], Diseases of crop plants. Macmillan, London.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Harrison, B.D. 1984. Potato leafroll virus. CMI/AAB Descriptions Plant Viruses, No. 291. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, Slough, U.K.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hille Ris Lambers, D. 1955. Potato aphids and virus disease in the Netherlands. Ann Appl Biol 42:355–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hoagland, D.R. and D.I. Arnon. 1938. The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. Univ Calif Agrie Exp Stn Circular 347.

  20. Hollings, M. 1955. Aphid movement and virus spread in seed potato areas of England and Wales, 1950-53. Plant Path 4:73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kassanis, B. 1952. Some factors affecting the transmission of leaf-roll virus by aphids. Ann Appl Biol 39:157–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Leonard, S.H. and F.R. Holbrook. 1978. Minimum acquisition and transmission times for potato leaf roll virus by the green peach aphid. Ann Entomol Soc Am 71:493–495.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mason, A., D.A. Nichols and M. Horken. 1993. Minnesota directory of certified seed potatoes, 1993 crop. Minn Dept of Ag, St. Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Minnesota Extension Service. 1993. Commercial vegetable pest management production guide — 1993. Minn Ext Serv Publ AG-BU-1880-S.

  25. Radcliffe, E.B., F.I. Lauer, M. Lee and D.P. Robinson. 1981. Evaluation of the United States potato collection for resistance to green peach aphid and potato aphid. Univ Minn Ag Expt Stn Bull 331, 42 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ragsdale, D.W, E.B. Radcliffe, CD. DiFonzo and M.S. Connelly. 1994. Action thresholds for an aphid vector of potato leafroll virus. In: G.W. Zehnder, M.L. Powelson, R.K. Jansson, and K.V. Raman (eds.). Advances in Potato Pest Biology and Management. APS Press, St. Paul, MN. pp. 99–110.

  27. Sams, D.M., F.L. Lauer and E.B. Radcliffe. 1975. Excised leaflet test for evaluating resistance to green peach aphid in tuber-bearingSolanum germplasm. J Econ Entomol 68:607–609.

    Google Scholar 

  28. SAS Institute. 1988. SAS/STAT users guide, release 6.03 ed. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Souza Dias, J.A.C. 1988. The relationship of potato leafroll virus concentration in the host and vector to disease spread. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tanaka, S. and H. Shiota. 1970. Latent period of potato leaf roll virus in the green peach aphid(Myzus persicae Sulzer). Ann Phytopath Soc Japan. 36:106–111.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Vaadeland, J.R. and E.B. Radcliffe. 1992. Foliar sprays for control of pyrethroid resistant green peach aphid, 1991. Insecticide and Acaricide Tests, 17:150.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Villacarlos, L.T. 1983. Systemic insecticides in relation to the transmission of potato leafroll virus byMyzus persicae Sulzer. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wright, N.S., H.R. MacCarthy and A.R. Forbes. 1970. Epidemiology of potato leaf roll virus in the Fraser River delta of British Columbia. Am Potato J 47:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Entomology, 219 Hodson Hall, University of Minnesota, 1980 Folwell Ave., 55108, St. Paul, MN

    Christina D. DiFonzo, David W. Ragsdale & Edward B. Radcliffe

Authors
  1. Christina D. DiFonzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David W. Ragsdale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edward B. Radcliffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

DiFonzo, C.D., Ragsdale, D.W. & Radcliffe, E.B. Potato leafroll virus spread in differentially resistant potato cultivars under varying aphid densities. American Potato Journal 72, 119–132 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02987284

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02987284

Additional keywords

Search

Navigation