4.6 Article

Grass species and endophyte effects on survival and development of fall armyworm (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae)

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY
卷 95, 期 2, 页码 487-492

出版社

ENTOMOL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1603/0022-0493-95.2.487

关键词

Spodoptera frugiperda; host plant resistance; turfgrass; forage; sod production; endophyte

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Grass selections including 10 zoysiagrasses, 18 paspalums, 34 Bermuda grasses, tall fescue, creeping red fescue, and perennial ryegrasses with and without endophyte were evaluated for potential resistance to fall armyworm, Spodopterafrugiporda (J. E. Smith), larvae. Laboratory evaluations assessed the degree of antibiosis among >70 grass lines to first-instar fall armyworms. When all parameters measured were considered, the trend in resistance to fall armyworm among endophyte-nfected (E+) and endophyte-free (E-) cool season grasses from greatest to least was: 'Dawson'E+ > APR 1234 > 'Dawson'E- >'Rosalin'E+ > Lp 5425, 'Rosalin'E-, ATF 480 >'Tulsa'or: E+ slender creeping red fescue > E+ turf- type perennial ryegrass > E- slender creeping red fescue > E+ forage-type perennial ryegrass > E- forage-type perennial ryegrasses, and E+ tallfescue > E- turf-type tall fescue. Among warm season grasses larval weight gain was reduced on all zoysiagrasses. Larval weight gain also was lower on the Bermuda grasses 'Tifsport', 'Tifgreen', 97-4, 97-14, 97-22, 97-28, 97-39, 97-40, 97-54, 98-15,98-30, and 98-45 than when larvae were fed 'Tulsa' tall fescue or the diet control. Only APR1234 and 'Dawson' creeping red fescue reduced larval survival to the same extent that was observed for zoysiagrasses. Survival on Bermuda grasses was least on 97-8. Seashore paspalums were only rarely less susceptible to fall armyworm than tall fescue, although pupal weights were consistently lower on 'Temple 1' and 'Sea Isle 1' paspalums than that on 'Tulsa' tall fescue. Genetic resistance to key grass pests can reduce insecticide use and simplify management of these cultivars.

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