4.6 Article

Weight Loss and Germination Failure Caused by Psocids in Different Wheat Varieties

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY
卷 106, 期 1, 页码 491-498

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1603/EC12253

关键词

stored product; Psocoptera; booklouse; Liposcelis; insect pest

资金

  1. Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station [OKL02695]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated weight loss caused by Liposcelis entomophila (Enderlein) feeding in damaged (cracked) and intact kernels of 'Jagger' variety of hard red winter wheat over a 90-d period at 30 +/- 1 degrees C and 75 +/- 5% relative humidity. L. entomophila caused 8.5% weight loss in damaged wheat kernels, which was significantly greater than the weight loss found in intact wheat kernels (0.2%). We also evaluated the suitability of six wheat varieties commonly grown in Oklahoma, namely, Jagger, 'Endurance,' 'Overley,' 'Jagalene,' 'OK Bullet,' and 'Deliver' to support populations of four psocid species, namely, Liposcelis bostrychophila Badonnel, L. decolor (Pearman), L. entomophila, and L. paeta Pearman over a 30-d period. The greatest population increase was observed in L. bostrychophila followed by L. paeta. Subsequently, weight loss of damaged and intact wheat kernels and germination of intact kernels infested by L. paeta over a 45-d period were assessed in OK Bullet variety. L. paeta caused weight loss of 3.3% in damaged kernels, which was significantly greater than the weight loss found in intact kernels (0.4%). Based on our data, 40% of infested intact kernels failed to germinate after 45 d of infestation by L. paeta, but this decreased to 32% when adjusted using germination failure of uninfested kernels. Our data show that psocid infestations do not only cause considerable loss in weight of wheat, but also result in significant germination failure. These data call for the formulation of effective integrated psocid management strategies for stored wheat to mitigate the negative impacts of psocid pests.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据