Effects of Leaf Mineral Compounds on Biology and Survival of Xanthogaleruca luteola Muller (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

پژوهش های حفاظت گیاهان ایران

Article 1, Volume 30, Issue 1 - Serial Number 34, March 2016, Pages 1-6   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jpp.v30i1.22786

Authors

H. Yazdanfar^* ; mehrdad ghodskhah daryaei

Abstract

Introduction: Investigation the relationship between herbivores and their host plant has long been one of the critical areas of study in plant science research. Herbivores should find sufficient nutritional and mineral compounds to survive on the Earth. Elm leaf beetle is one of the most destructive pests among species of elm family. This insect feeds from elm plants during its larvae and youth life cycle causing crest distortion and many other physiological problems to the host plant. These problems in turn decrease host plant’s resistance to other pests and diseases. In this vein, effects of some minerals such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, in four host plants including Ulmus carpinifolia, U. carpinifolia var. umbraculifera, Zelkowa carpinifolia and Celtis coucasica , on larval development and survival of elm leaf beetle, Xanthoga lerucaluteola (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), were studied under laboratory conditions (26±2ᵒC, 65±5% RH and 16:8 L: D).
Material and Methods: Elm leaf beetle eggs were collected from the elm trees on the campus of faculty of natural resources at the university of Guilan, in north of Iran. Larvae were reared on different host plants in plastic jars and their biology and survival was determined. Some mineral compounds were assessed for the foliage of every host plants. Leaf nitrogen content was analyzed according to the technique introduced by Baker and Thompson. Phosphorus was measured based on Moore technique and potassium was determined by flame photometer based on Hanlon protocol.
Results and Discussion: Analysis of variance showed that there was significant difference between the four studied host plants in terms of amount of phosphorous, potassium and nitrogen. The highest and the lowest amount of phosphorous and potassium was observed in U. carpinifolia and Ta leaves respectively (F=22.56; df=8, 3 for phosphorous test and F=22.36; df= 8, 3 for potassium analysis). As for nitrogen, the amount of nitrogen is significantly higher in Azad treatment compared to other three treatments (F=168.98; df= 8, 3). In terms of survival and total larvae developmental time, first instar larvae which had reared on U. carpinifolia leaves developed into other instars in a significantly shorter time span, compared to larvae reared on other three host plants. It should be noted that larvae fed from Ta leaves did not developed into third instar; so for the fourth instar developmental time analysis only larvae fed from three other host plants were included in the analysis. In terms of pupal developmental time, analysis showed that the shortest developmental time was found in larvae reared on U. carpinifolia leaves (6.78 days) and the longest developmental time was seen in larvae fed from Azad treatments (9.32 days). As for survival of larvae, the result exhibited that larvae reared on U. carpinifolia leaves had a higher survival rate compared to larvae fed from other three host plants. Total larval developmental time of X. luteola was significantly highest on C. coucasica in comparison with the other three host plants used in the study. All larval instars showed the highest survival on U. carpinifolia and the lowest survival was found on C. coucasica. The results indicated that the larvae, which had fed on host plants with higher level of mentioned mineral, had shorter duration of development.
Conclusion: This research revealed that the mineral nutrition of host plants probably has significant effects on herbivore insects performance. It could be concluded that larvae developmental time and survival is highly dependent on the type of nutritional compounds which is probably due in turn to mineral compositions of the host plants. In other words, one can conclude that different kinds of minerals with different concentrations can probably be one of the main factors affecting developmental time and survival of larvae. It is suggested that more physical and chemical characteristics of elm tree be investigated and measured to achieve more precise result in the area of elm beetle larvae’s developmental time and survival.

Keywords

Elms; Larval Development; Leaf Compounds

References

- Ansari M.S., Hasan F., and Ahmad N. 2012. Influence of various host plants on the consumption and utilization of food by Pierisbrassicae (Linn.), Bulletin of Entomological Research Cambridge University Press, 102(2):231-237.

2- Arbab E., Jalali J., and Sahragard A. 2002. Laboratory study of the biology of the pest Xanthogaleruca Luteola Muller, Entomology Societyof Iran. 21 (2):85-73.

3- Augner M. 1995. Low nutritive quality as a plant defense effects of herbivore-mediated interactions. Evolutionary Ecology,9: 605–16.

4- Awmack C.S., and Leather S.R. 2002. Host plant quality and fecundity in herbivorous insects. Annual Review of Entomology, 47:817–44.

5- Baker W.H., and Thompson T.L. 1992. Determination of total nitrogen in plant samples by Kjeldahl. In: Plank CO Ed). : Plant analysis reference procedures for the southern region of the United States. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin, 13-16 pp.

6- Behdad A. 1988. Pests and diseases of forest trees and shrubs and ornamental plants in Iran, Neshad publication, Isfahan.

7- Behmer S.T., Simpson S.J., and Raubenheimer D. 2002. Herbivoreforaging in chemical heterogeneous environments:nutrients and secondary metabolites. Ecology, 83:2489–501.

8- Clancy K.K., and King R.M. 1993. Defining the western spruce budworm’s nutritional niche with response surface methodology. Ecology, 74:442–454.

9- Ehrlich P.R., and Raven P.H.1964. Butterflies and plants: a study incoevolution. Evolution, 18:586–608.

10- Foss L.K., and Rieske L.K. 2003. Species-specific differences in oak foliage affectpreference and performance of gypsy moth caterpillars. The Netherlands Entomological Society Entomologia Experimentaliset Applicata, 108: 87–93.

11- Fraenkel G.S. 1959. The raison d’eˆ tre of secondary plantssubstances. Science, 219:1466–70.

12- Hanlon E.A. 1992. Determination of potassium, calcium and magnesium in plants by Atomic Absorption Techniques. In: Plank CO (Ed): Plant analysis reference procedures for the southern region of the United States. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin, 30-33 pp.

13- Hwang S.Y., Liu C.H., and Shen T.C. 2008. Effects of plant nutrient availability and host plant species on the performance of two Pieris butterflies (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Biochemical Systematics and Ecology, 36:505-513.

14- Ishino M.N., De Sibio P.R., Rossi M.N. 2011. Leaf trait variation on Erythroxylum tortuosum (Erythroxylaceae) and its relationship with oviposition performance and stress by a host plant-specific leaf miner. Austral Ecology, 36: 203-211.

15- Kessler A., and Baldwin I.T. 2002. Plant responses to insect herbivory:the emergingmolecular analysis. Annual Review of PlantBiology, 53:299–328.

16- Khalili Mahani M., Hatami B., and Seyedoleslami H. 2003. Host preference of three elms and hackberry for elm leaf beetle, Xanthogale rucaluteola (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Forest Ecology and Management. 186(1-3), 207–212.

17- LillJ.T., and Marquis R.J. 2001. The effects of leaf quality on herbivore performance and attack from natural enemies. Oecologia, 126: 418-428.

18- Lucas P.W., Turner I.M., Dominy N.J., and Yamashita N. 2000. Mechanical defences to herbivory. Annals of Botany, 86:913–20.

19- Mattson Jr W.J. 1980. Herbivory in relation to plant nitrogen content. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 11:119–61.

20- Mauffettey Y., and Oechel W.C. 1989. Seasonal variation in leaf chemistry of the coast live oak Quercus agrifolia and implications for the California oak moth Phyrganidia californica. Oecologia, 79(4):439–445.

21- Moore K.P. 1992. Determination of Phosphorus in Plant Tissue by Colorimetry .In: Plank C.O. (Ed): Plant analysis reference procedures for the southern region of the United States. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin, 27-29 pp.

22- Oishi M., Yokota T., Teramoto N., and Sato H. 2006. Japanese oak silkmoth feeding preference for and performance on upper-crown and lower-crown leaves. Entomological Science, 9:161-169.

23- Raubenheimer D., and Simpson S.J. 1997. Integrative models of nutrient balancing: application to insects and vertebrates. Nutrition Research Reviews, 10(1):151–79.

24- Roberts M.R., and Paul N.D. 2006. Seduced by the dark side: integrating molecular and ecological perspectives on the influence of light on plant defense against pests and pathogens. New Phytologist, 170:677–99.

25- Roslin T., Gripenberg S., Salminen J.P., Karonen M., O’Hara R.B., and Pihlaja K. 2006. Seeing the trees for the leaves oaks as mosaics for a host-specific moth. Oikos, 113:106–20.

26- Roy N., and Barik A. 2013. Influence of four host- plants on feeding, growth and reproduction of Diacrisiac asignetum (Lepidoptera:Arctiidae). Entomological Science, 16:112-118.

27- Singer M.S., Bernays E.A., and Carrie `re Y. 2002. The interplay between nutrient balancing and toxin dilution in foraging by a generalist insect herbivore. Animal Behaviour, 64:629–43.

28- Stiling P., and Moon D.C. 2005. Quality or quantity: the direct and indirect effects of host plants on herbivores and their natural enemies. Oecologia, 142:413–20.

29- Wittstock U., and Gershenzon J. 2002. Constitutive plant toxins and their role in defense against herbivores and pathogens. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 5:300–7.