مقاومت آنتی‌بیوزی پایه‌های امید بخش سیب به شته مومی [Eriosoma lanigerum (Hausm.))] در شرایط محیطی کرج

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد، پژوهشکده میوه های معتدله و سردسیری، موسسه تحقیقات علوم باغبانی، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران.

2 استادیار، پژوهشکده میوه های معتدله و سردسیری، موسسه تحقیقات علوم باغبانی، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران.

3 استادیار، بخش تحقیقات نماتد شناسی، موسسه تحقیقات گیاهپزشکی کشور، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

شته مومی[(Eriosoma lanigerum (Hausm]. یکی از آفات مهم درختان سیب است. این پژوهش برای ارزیابی مقاومت آنتی­بیوزی پایه­های امیدبخش سیب به این آفت در سال­های 1399 تا 1401 انجام شد. تعداد 10 ژنوتیپ انتخابی حاصل از هیبریداسیون و گرده‌افشانی آزاد ژنوتیپ‌های پاکوتاه بومی سیب شامل آزایش اصفهان و مربائی مشهد به عنوان والد مادری و پایه‌های رویشی تجاری سیب شاملM9, M27, B9  به عنوان والد پدری انتخاب شدو در قالب طرح بلوک کامل تصادفی ارزیابی شدند. تعداد کلنی شته در محل ریشه، طوقه، ساقه و شاخه ارزیابی شد. شاخص­های مقاومت آنتی­بیوزی شامل شاخص های بلومبر، نرخ رشد جمعیت، آنتی‌بیوز، ساختار سنی جمعیت، شته روز تجمعی، پتانسیل بوم­شناختی قابل بهره­برداری و بقاء محاسبه شد. تجزیه عاملی به منظور تشخیص عامل­های مشاهده ناپذیر ترکیبی مؤثر بر نوع سازکار مقاومت بر پایه مجموعه شاخص­های مشاهده پذیر برآورد شد. برای تفکیک ژنوتیپ‌ها بر اساس درجه حساسیت از روش تجزیه خوشه‏ای استفاده شد. بر اساس نتایج تعداد چهار پایه سیب بنام­های Azop(285)، AZ × M9(185)، Azop(286) و Azop(386) از نظر رتبه مقاومت آنتی­بیوزی به ترتیب حساس ترین پایه­ها و M9op(387) مقاوم­ترین پایه نسبت به شته مومی بود. میانگین شاخص­های بلومبر، نرخ رشد جمعیت، آنتی‌بیوز، ساختار سنی جمعیت، شته روز تجمعی، پتانسیل بوم­شناختی قابل بهره­برداری و بقاء به ترتیب23/90، 0/03، 0/06، 381/46، 801/9، 0/09 و 150 بود. مقاومت به شته مومی سیب یک یافته ارزشمند است که می تواند در برنامه های به نژادی سیب و مدیریت تنوع ارقام سیب در چشم انداز تولید پایدار این محصول بهره­برداری شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Antibiosis Resistance Of Promising Apple Rootstocks To Woolly Aphid [(Eriosoma lanigerum (Hausm.)] under Environmental Conditions of Karaj in Iran

نویسندگان [English]

  • M. Latifian 1
  • D. Atashkar 2
  • R. Ghaemi 3
1 Professor, Temperate Fruits Research Center, Horticultural Sciences Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Temperate Fruits Research Center, Horticultural Sciences Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran.
3 Assistant Professor, Nematology Research Department, Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

The woolly aphid [Eriosoma lanigerum (Hausm.)] is an important pest of apple trees. This research was conducted to evaluate the antibiosis resistance of promising apple rootstocks to this pest during 2019 to 2021. Ten selected rootstocks developed from hybridization and open pollination of two local apple varieties, Azaish Isfahan and Morabaei Mashhad, as the female parents and commercial apple rootstocks including M9, M27, B9 were selected as the male parents. The number of aphid colonies in the root, crown, stem and branch was evaluated. Antibiosis resistance indices including, population growth rate, antibiosis, population age structure, cumulative aphid day, exploitable ecological potential and survival were calculated. The data were analyzed in by complete randomized block design and means were compared with Tukey's test. Principal component analysis order to identify unobservable combined factors affecting the resistance mechanism based on indices. Observable values were calculated and cluster analysis method used to group the rootstocks based on the degree of susceptibility. Based on the results of this research, four apple rootstocks named Azop(285), AZ × M9(185), Azop(286) and Azop(386) were the most susceptible and M9op3 was the most resistant to woolly aphid.  Average of population growth rate, antibiosis, age population structure, Aphid day, exploitation ecological potential. and survival indices were 23.90, 0.03, 0.06, 381.46, 801.9, 9.09 and 150.00, respectively. Resistance to apple wooly aphid should be taken into consideration in apple breeding programs and orchard management for sustainable apple production.
 
Keywords: Aphid, biological susceptibility, population growth, survival, age structure.
Introduction
Woolly apple Aphid [(Eriosoma lanigerum (Hausm.)], feed on the bark and roots of the apple tree, weakens it and reduces the growth of the tree organs (Yang et al., 2023). Various apple rootstocks have rich genetic resources of resistance to the woolly apple aphid that enables the development of resistant apple cultivars (Moinina et al., 2018). There is always need to develop and release new resistant cultivars to woolly aphid biotypes (Han and Korban, 2010). Antibiosis is a type of plant resistance that includes at least one plant characteristic that affects the biological indices of the pest (Le Roux et al., 2014). This research was carried out to evaluate the level of antibisis resistance in promising apple rootstocks against woolly aphid and to determine morphological characteristics of apple rootstocks related to this type of resistance.
 
Materials and Methods
This research was conducted in the collection orchard of the temperate fruits research center in Kamalshahr of Karaj in Iran during 2019 to 2021. Ten apple rootstocks were selected from the promising progenies developed from hybridization and open pollination of two local apple varieties including Azaish Isfahan and Morabaei Mashhad as female parents and commercial apple rootstocks including M9, M27, B9 as male parents in the apple rootstocks development programs in temperate fruits research center, Horticultural Sciences Research Institute, Karaj, Iran. Samples of apple woolly aphid colonies were taken, every two weeks, from the beginning of April to mid-November. The root, crown, trunk and branch sections of apple rootstocks were evaluated. Antibiosis resistance indices including bloomber (R), population growth rate (MRCR), antibiosis (ABI), population age structure (PASI), cumulative aphid day (CAD), ecological expolitation potential (EEP) and survival (St) were calculated. Vegetative growth traits of apple rootstocks were measured and recorded. Analysis of variance of data was performed as randomized complete block design and means were compared using Tukey test. Factor analysis was used to identify the unobservable combined factors. Cluster analysis was used to group the apple rootstocks, and canonical discriminatnt function analysis (LDA) was used to evaluate the accuracy of clustering of apple rootstocks using IBM SPSS Statistics 27.0.1.0 software.
 
Results and Discussion
Cophenetic correlation coefficients between the Euclidean distance matrix and the dendrogram output matrix obtained from cluster analysis was equal to 0.83 which indicated the acceptable grouping of apple rootstocks using antibibiosis resistance indices. Four apple rootstocks; Azop(285), AZ × M9(185), Azop(286) and Azop(386) were the most susceptible rootstocks to woolly aphid. Average bloomber, population growth rate, antibiosis, population age structure, cumulative day aphid, ecological exploitation potential and survival were 23.90, 0.03, 0.06, 381.46, 9.801, 9.09 and 150, respectively. Comparison of demographic parameters including population age structure index and seasonal index of effective aphid day showed that these indices affect the dynamics of aphid population on apple rootstocks. The minimum value of blumber index in the resistant rootstock, M9op(387), was 0.76 and the maximum in the susceptible rootstock Azop(285) was 34.16.
The average root length had the greatest effect on the variation in the relative establishment rate of apple wolly aphid (Latifian et al., 2023). These authors reported that this trait had significant effect on the bloomber and ecological exploitation potential indices. The relation between this trait and bloomber and ecological exploitation potential indices was negative, and with increase in root length the bloomber and ecological exploitation potential decreased, therefore, the antibiosis resistance level in the apple rootstocks increased. Antibiosis resistance to woolly aphid is a valuable finding and should be taken into consideration in apple breeding programs and apple orchard management for sustainable apple production.
 
References
Han, Y. and Korban, S.S., 2010. Strategies for map-based cloning in apple. Critical Reviews in Plant Science, 29(5), pp.265-284. DOI: 10.1080/07352689.2010.502075
 Latifian, M., Atashkar, D. and Ghaemi, R., 2023. Relative establishment rate and host preference of wooly apple Aphid Eriosoma lanigerum (Hausmann, 1802) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) on promising apple hybrid rootstocks. Journal of Entomological Society of Iran, 43(3), pp.233-245.  DOI: 10.52547/JESI.43.3.4
Le Roux, V., Dugravot, S., Campan, E., Dubois, F., Vincent, C. and Giordanengo, P., 2014. Wild Solanum resistance to Aphids: antixenosis or antibiosis?. Journal of Economic Entomology, 101(2), pp.584-591. DOI: 10.1093/jee/101.2.584
Moinina, A., Lahlali, R., MacLean, D. and Boulif, M., 2018. Farmers’ knowledge, perception and practices in apple pest management and climate change in the fes-meknes region, Morocco. Horticulturae, 4(4), 42. DOI: 10.3390/horticulturae4040042

مراجع

Adhikari, U., 2022. Distribution, biology, nature of damage and management of woolly apple aphid, Eriosoma lanigerum (Hausmann), (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in apple orchard: a review. Reviews in Food and Agriculture, 3(2), pp.92-99. DOI: 10.26480/rfna.02.2022.92.99.
 
Alspach, P.A. and Bus, V.G., 1999. Spatial variation of woolly apple aphid (Eriosoma lanigerum, Hausmann) in a genetically diverse apple planting. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 23(1), pp.39-44.
 
Asante, S.K., 1999. Seasonal abundance of woolly apple aphid, Eriosoma lanigerum (Hausmann) and its important natural enemies in Armidale, northern New South Wales. Plant Protection Quarterly, 14, pp.16-23. DOI: 10.1017/S0007485314000753
 
Atamian, H.S., 2012. Tomato-potato aphid interactions: insights into plant defense and the aphid pest. University of California, Riverside, USA. 239 pp.
 
Atashkar, D., Pirkhezri, M. and Taghizadeh, A.A., 2016. Production and primary evaluation of apple (Mallus domestica Borkh.) hybrid rootstocks. Iranian Journal of Horticultural Science, 47(2), pp.229-235.  DOI: 10.22059/ijhs.2016.5834.
 
Ateyyat, M.A. and Al-Antary, T.M., 2009. Susceptibility of nine apple cultivars to woolly apple aphid, Eriosoma lanigerum (Homoptera: Aphididae) in Jordan. International Journal of Pest Management, 55(1), pp.79-84. DOI: 10.1080/09670870802546164
 
Bangels, E., Alhmedi, A., Akkermans, W., Bylemans, D. and Belien, T., 2021. Towards a knowledge-based decision support system for integrated control of woolly apple aphid, Eriosoma lanigerum, with maximal biological suppression by the parasitoid Aphelinus mali. Insects, 12(6), 479. DOI: 10.3390/insects12060479
 
Bell, R.L., 2015. Effect of resistant and susceptible East European pears on development and mortality of the pear psylla, Cacopsylla pyricola (Förster). HortScience, 50(5), pp.661-665.  DOI: 10.21273/HORTSCI.50.5.661
 
Beers, E.H., Cockfield, S.D. and Gontijo, L.M., 2010. Seasonal phenology of woolly apple aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in Central Washington. Environmental entomology, 39(2), pp.286-294. DOI:10.1603/EN09280
 
Boissot, N., Schoeny, A. and Vanlerberghe-Masutti, F., 2016. Vat, an amazing gene conferring resistance to aphids and viruses they carry: from molecular structure to field effects. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7, 1420. DOI:10.3389/fpls.2016.01420
 
Bus, V.G.M., Chagné, D., Bassett, H.C.M., Bowatte, D., Calenge, F., Celton, J.M., Durel, C.E., Malone, M.T., Patocchi, A., Ranatunga, A.C. and Rikkerink, E.H.A., 2008. Genome mapping of three major resistance genes to woolly apple aphid (Eriosoma lanigerum Hausm.). Tree Genetics & Genomes, 4, pp.223-236. DOI:10.1007/s11295-007-0103-3
 
Chen, A., Li, X., Tan, T., Gong, S., Zhao, X., Chen, F. and Zhan, L., 2006. Bio-characters of woolly apple aphid (WAA, Homomptera: Aphididae) in Zhaotong. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 19(1), pp.81-84.
 
Christians, G.E., 2003. Identification of molecular markers linked to woolly apple aphid (Eriosoma lanigerum Hausmann) resistance in apple. Ph. D. Thesis. Stellenbosch University. South Africa. 127 pp.
 
Cummins, J.N., Forsline, P.L. and Mackenzie, J.D., 1981. Woolly apple aphid colonization on Malus cultivars. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 106(1), pp.26-30. DOI:10.21273/JASHS.106.1.26
Damavandian, M.R., 2000. Biology of subterranean populations of woolly apple aphid, Eriosoma lanigerum Hausmann) (Homoptera: Aphididae) in apple orchards. Ph. D. Thesis. Stellenbosch University. South Africa.138 pp.
 
Dean, A.N., Niemi, J.B., Tyndall, J.C., Hodgson, E.W. and O'Neal, M.E., 2021. Developing a decision‐making framework for insect pest management: a case study using Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Pest Management Science, 77(2), pp.886-894. DOI: 10.1002/ps.6093
 
Deng, J., Rui, G., Guan, Y., Yu, Y., Zhang, D. and Hong, J., 1993. The selection of an apple stock line, Siberian crabapple Jin 67, immune to the woolly apple aphid. Acta Phytophylacica Sinica, 20(3), pp.217-222.
 
Ehteshami-Moinabadi, M., 2022. Properties of fault zones and their influences on rainfall-induced landslides, examples from Alborz and Zagros ranges. Environmental Earth Sciences, 81(5), 168. DOI: 10.1007/s12665-022-10283-2
 
Fluke, C.L., 1930. The influence of resistant apple scions on the susceptibility of non-resistant stocks with relation to woolly Aphid attacks. Journal of Economic Entomology, 23(4), pp.741-743. DOI: 10.1093/jee/23.4.741
Frades, I. and Matthiesen, R., 2010. Overview on techniques in cluster analysis. Bioinformatics Methods in Clinical Research, pp.81-107. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-60327-194-3_5
 
Fraley, C. and Raftery, A.E., 2002. Model-based clustering, discriminant analysis, and density estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97(458), pp.611-631. DOI: 10.1198/016214502760047131
 
Goggin, F.L., 2007. Plant–aphid interactions: molecular and ecological perspectives. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 10(4), pp.399-408. DOI: 10.1016/j.pbi.2007.06.004
 
Gogtay, N.J. and Thatte, U.M., 2017. Principles of correlation analysis. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, 65(3), pp.78-81.
 
Guerrieri, E. and Digilio, M.C., 2008. Aphid-plant interactions: a review. Journal of Plant Interactions, 3(4), pp.223-232. DOI: 10.1080/17429140802567173
 
Hamzehzarghani, H., Kushalappa, A.C., Dion, Y., Rioux, S., Comeau, A., Yaylayan, V., Marshall, W.D. and Mather, D.E., 2005. Metabolic profiling and factor analysis to discriminate quantitative resistance in wheat cultivars against fusarium head blight. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology, 66(4), pp.119-133. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmpp.2005.05.005
 
Han, Y. and Korban, S.S., 2010. Strategies for map-based cloning in apple. Critical Reviews in Plant Science, 29(5), pp.265-284. DOI: 10.1080/07352689.2010.502075
 
Hao, Z., Lingjun, D., Fang-Hao, W. and Hongxu, Z., 2020. Comparative analysis of stylet penetration behaviors of Eriosoma lanigerum (Hemiptera: Aphididae) on main apple cultivars in China. Journal of Economic Entomology, 113(4), pp.1761-1767. DOI: 10.1093/jee/toaa085
 
Hodge, S. and Powell, G., 2008. Do plant viruses facilitate their aphid vectors by inducing symptoms that alter behavior and performance?. Environmental Entomology, 37(6), pp.1573-1581.  DOI: 10.1603/0046-225X-37.6.1573.
 
Inayatullah, C., Webster, J.A. and Fargo, W.S., 1990. Index for measuring plant resistance to insects. Entomologist, 109(3), pp.146-152.
 
Kenis, M., Auger-Rozenberg, M.A., Roques, A., Timms, L., Péré, C., Cock, M.J., Settele, J., Augustin, S. and Lopez-Vaamonde, C., 2009. Ecological effects of invasive alien insects. Biological Invasions, 11, pp.21-45. DOI: 10.1007/s10530-008-9318-y
 
Kumar, S., 2019. Aphid-plant interactions: implications for pest management. Pp.223-232. In: Oliviera, M.T, Candan, F. and Fernandes-Silva (Eds.), Plant Communities and Their Environment, 3rd Volume. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.84302
 
Latifian, M., Atashkar, D. and Ghaemi, R., 2023. Relative establishment rate and host preference of wooly apple aphid Eriosoma lanigerum Hausmann, 1802) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) on promising apple hybrid rootstocks. Journal of Entomological Society of Iran, 43(3), pp.233-245. DOI: 10.52547/JESI.43.3.4
 
Le Roux, V., Dugravot, S., Campan, E., Dubois, F., Vincent, C. and Giordanengo, P., 2014. Wild solanum resistance to aphids: antixenosis or antibiosis? Journal of Economic Entomology, 101(2), pp.584-591. DOI: 10.1093/jee/101.2.584
 
Maixner, M., Albert, A. and Johannesen, J., 2014. Survival relative to new and ancestral host plants, phytoplasma infection, and genetic constitution in host races of a polyphagous insect disease vector. Ecology and Evolution, 4(15), pp.3082-3092. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.1158
 
Moinina, A., Lahlali, R., MacLean, D. and Boulif, M., 2018. Farmers’ knowledge, perception and practices in apple pest management and climate change in the Fes-meknes region, Morocco. Horticulturae, 4(4), 42. DOI: 10.3390/horticulturae4040042
 
Mookiah, S., Sivasubramaniam, B., Thangaraj, T. and Govindaraj, S., 2021. Host plant resistance. Molecular Approaches for Sustainable Insect Pest Management, pp.1-56. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-16-3591-5_1
 
Osborne, J., 2010. Improving your data transformations: Applying the Box-Cox transformation. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 15(1), 12. DOI: 10.7275/qbpc-gk17
 
Padmanabha, K., Choudhary, H., Mishra, G.P., Mandal, B., Solanke, A.U., Mishra, D.C. and Yadav, R.K., 2023. Identifying new sources of resistance to tomato leaf curl New Delhi virus from Indian melon germplasm by designing an improved method of field screening. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, pp.1-23. DOI: 10.1007/s10722-023-01744-z
 
Preston, A.P., 1966. Apple rootstock studies: fifteen years’ results with Malling-Merton clones. Journal of Horticultural Science, 41(4), pp.349-360. DOI: 10.1080/00221589.1966.11514181
 
Rhainds, M. and Messing, R.H., 2005. Spatial and temporal density dependence in a population of melon aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover (Homoptera: Aphididae), on established and sentinel taro plants. Applied Entomology and Zoology, 40(2), pp.273-282.  DOI: 10.1303/aez.2005.273
 
Ruiz-Montoya, L., Zúñiga, G., Cisneros, R., Salinas-Moreno, Y., Peña-Martínez, R. and Machkour-M’Rabet, S., 2015. Phenotypic and genetic variations in obligate parthenogenetic populations of Eriosoma lanigerum Hausmann (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Neotropical entomology, 44, pp.534-545.  DOI: 10.1007/s13744-015-0318-1
 
Russo, N.L., Robinson, T.L., Fazio, G. and Aldwinckle, H.S., 2007. Field evaluation of 64 apple rootstocks for orchard performance and fire blight resistance. HortScience, 42(7), pp.1517-1525. DOI: 10.21273/HORTSCI.42.7.1517
 
Sandanayaka, W.R.M., Bus, V.G.M. and Connolly, P., 2005. Mechanisms of woolly aphid [Eriosoma lanigerum (Hausm.)] resistance in apple. Journal of applied entomology, 129(9‐10), pp.534-541. DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0418.2005.01004.x
 
Timm, A.A.E., 2003. Genetic diversity of root-infesting woolly apple aphid Eriosoma lanigerum (Hausmann)(Hemiptera: Aphididae) populations in the Western Cape Ph. D. Thesis. Stellenbosch University. South Africa. 80 pp.
 
Tokunaga, E. and Suzuki, N., 2008. Colony growth and dispersal in the ant-tended aphid, Aphis craccivora Koch, and the non-ant-tended aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum Harris, under the absence of predators and ants. Population Ecology, 50, pp.45-52. DOI: 10.1007/s10144-007-0065-1
 
Yang, L.L., Wang, B., Shen, J. and Wang, G.R., 2023. Comparative morphology and plant volatile responses of antennal sensilla in Cinara cedri (Hemiptera: Lachninae), Eriosoma lanigerum (Hemiptera: Eriosomatinae), and Therioaphis trifolii (Hemiptera: CalAphidinae). Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, 17, 1162349. DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2023.1162349
 
Yates, A.D. and Michel, A., 2018. Mechanisms of Aphid adaptation to host plant resistance. Current Opinion in Insect Science, 26, pp.41-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.cois.2018.01.003
 
Verghese, A. and Jayanthi, P.K., 2002. A technique for quick estimation of aphid numbers in field. Current Science, pp.1165-1168.
 
Young, E., Rock, G.C., Zeiger, D.C. and Cummins, J.N., 1982. Infestation of some Malus cultivars by the North Carolina woolly apple aphid biotype. HortScience, 17(5), pp.787-788. DOI: 10.21273/HORTSCI.17.5.787
 
Zhao, L., He, N., Wang, J., Siddique, K.H., Gao, X. and Zhao, X., 2022. Plasticity of root traits in a seedling apple intercropping system driven by drought stress on the Loess Plateau of China. Plant and Soil, 480(1-2), pp.541-560. DOI: 10.1007/s11104-022-05603-1
 
Züst, T. and Agrawal, A.A., 2016. Mechanisms and evolution of plant resistance to aphids. Nature Plants, 2(1), pp.1-9.  DOI: 10.1038/nplants.2015.206
 
نهال و بذر
دوره 39، شماره 1
فروردین 1402
صفحه 120-93

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار