Next Article in Journal
Plant Traits in Spring and Winter Canola Genotypes Under Salinity
Previous Article in Journal
Genome-Wide Analysis of the CDPK Gene Family in Populus tomentosa and Their Expressions in Response to Arsenic Stress and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Colonization
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 7
10.3390/agronomy15071656
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Modelling Flight Activity of Aphids in Seed Potatoes Using Suction Trap and Yellow Water Trap for Risk Assessment of Virus Diseases

by
Frantisek Kocourek
1,
Ondrej Douda
1,
Jitka Stara
1,*,
Svatopluk Rychly
2,
David Fryc
2,
Petr Dolezal
3,
Ervin Hausvater
3 and
Anna Sedova
3
1
Czech Agrifood Research Center, Drnovska 507/73, 16106 Prague, Czech Republic
2
Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture, Hroznova 63/2, 60300 Brno, Czech Republic
3
Potato Research Institute Havlickuv Brod, Ltd., Dobrovskeho 2366, 58001 Havlickuv Brod, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(7), 1656; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15071656
Submission received: 22 May 2025 / Revised: 27 June 2025 / Accepted: 3 July 2025 / Published: 8 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Pest and Disease Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Insecticides are mainly used to control aphids as they are potatoes’ main vectors of viruses. This study analysed the flight activity of Myzus persicae, Phorodon humuli, and Aphis nasturtii from a suction trap over 22 years (2002–2024). We also analysed the flight activity of seven aphid species, vectors of viruses from the yellow water trap over 6 years (2019–2024). The number of catches of aphids in the suction trap was higher in 2014–2024 than in 2002–2013: for M. persicae, 4.2-fold, P. humuli 2.1-fold, and A. nastrurtii, 1.9-fold. A statistically significant correlation between mean temperature per year and total capture of M. persicae per year in the suction trap was found. The analysis showed no relationship between the abundance of M. persicae and P. humuli from the suction trap in spring and the abundance in the yellow water trap in the potato field. The dominant aphid species in the yellow water trap were M. persicae, Brevicoryne brassicae, and Aphis fabae. Regression analysis showed no direct relationship between aphid abundance in the yellow water trap over the period of 2019–2024 and seedling recruitment. Potato aphid control options are discussed concerning the flight activity and specific life cycles of each aphid species.

1. Introduction

Despite intensive chemical protection, seed potatoes from 6.1 to 21.9% of the planting area in this study was not certified between 2002 and 2023 due to the occurrence of viral diseases (Supplementary Table S2; [1]). The most important potato viruses transmitted by aphids include potato virus Y (PVY), potato leaf roll virus (PLRV), potato virus A (PVA), potato virus M (PVM), and potato virus S (PVS) [2]. The virus with the highest frequency of occurrence in recent times has been potato virus Y. Viruses are either transmitted persistently by aphids (e.g., PLRV) [3] or non-persistently (e.g., PVY), and an increasing proportion of viruses are being transmitted non-persistently [2,4,5]. Direct measures against the transmission of viral diseases in Czechia include the elimination of sources of infection (negative selections), the use of insecticides against viral disease vectors, and the artificial termination of vegetation. Given that virus Y is transmitted non-persistently, aphids that fly into the crop must be killed quickly to effectively limit transmission.
The registration of planting areas in Czechia is ensured by the Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture (CISTA, Czechia) as part of the recognition procedure. These are subsequently published online in the Overviews of Registered Propagation Areas published by the CISTA Seeds and Seedlings Department [6]. The results of post-harvest tests are published in the annual Situation and Outlook Reports for the potato commodity, published by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic [1].
In Czechia, Myzus persicae, Phorodon humuli, and Aphis nasturtii have to be considered to be the most important vectors of potato virus diseases. Myzus persicae (Sulzer) is a highly polyphagous pest that feeds on many economically important crops. The host range includes over 1015 plant species worldwide [7]. In central Europe, major crops affected by M. persicae include potatoes (Solanum tuberosum), oilseed rape (Brassica napus subsp. napus), sugar beet (Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris var. altissima), and cruciferous vegetables. In addition to the damage caused by direct feeding on oilseed rape crop plants, M. persicae can transmit about 180 plant viruses which cause significant damage [8,9].
Phorodon humuli (Schrank) is a major sucking pest in hop gardens, causing damage by direct feeding, through the excretion of honeydew, and as a vector of hop viruses. The damson-hop aphid is holocyclic and overwinters on several common Prunus spp. as its primary hosts (mainly Prunus spinosa L. and P. domestica L). Peaches and cherries are also accepted as winter hosts. Hop and potatoes are secondary summer hosts.
Aphis nasturtii (Kaltenbach) is nearly globally distributed, located in all but the coldest terrestrial habitats. It has a broad host range, having been recorded on species of over 235 plant families [7,10]. Aphis nasturtii transmits potato viruses Y, S, M, and A, and potato leaf roll virus [11,12,13], beet yellows virus, and cucumber mosaic virus [14].
The current situation of the threat to crops from virus transmission and the need for protection is determined by aphid infestations in potato plantings, which are monitored on yellow water traps placed at the level of the upper leaf layer of potato plants. To determine the effectiveness of protective measures and insecticides against the presence of aphids in planting crops, a hundred-leaf test is carried out, where the number of wingless aphids on the underside of leaves is counted [15].
The process of sampling aerial plankton aphid populations was standardised by using Johnson–Taylor suction traps [16,17]. These traps have a chimney-shaped suction device with an opening at a height of 12.2 m. The traps capture aphid migrants flying above the approximately 9 m high boundary layer of air where aphids are behaviourally conditioned to move [18,19] and samples the aerial plankton at the height where composition is not determined by local conditions, revealing the mean aphid abundance and temporal fluctuation over a large area [20]. This trapping makes it possible to monitor population changes and anticipate the pest potential of aphids at a regional level [21].
Data from Johnson–Taylor suction traps have been used for modelling the flight activity of Acyrthosiphon pisum [22] and M. persicae [23], modelling the colonisation of plants with Rhopalosiphum padi [24], or evaluating long-term trends in migration of Brassicogethes aeneus [25]. Data from Johnson–Taylor suction traps have also been used for monitoring and signalling the 10 most important aphid species in Poland [26]. In Czechia, data on the long-term monitoring of aphids from suction traps have already been used for the analysis of flight activity of Metopolophium dirhodum, Rhopalosiphum padi, and Sitobion avenae on cereals [27,28], as well as M. persicae and Brevicoryne brassicae, two main vectors of oilseed rape infection viruses [29], and to monitor aphidomorphic insects in forests [30].
Research on aphid flight patterns and prediction of their migration is gaining more importance as a result of global climate change, having a significant impact on geographical distribution, population dynamics, and the phenology of many organisms [31,32]. The sensitivity of aphids to temperature changes is particularly high due to their small body size and short life cycle [32,33]. This current situation, together with the high economic importance of many aphid species, increases the importance of modelling the flight activity of aphids.
A network of Johnson–Taylor-type suction traps have been in operation in Czechia since 1992 in several locations. The Johnson–Taylor suction trap (12.2 m) represents an area with a radius of 80 km (a generally accepted standard). The operator is the Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture (CISTA). At present, the date for the start of aphid control on seed potatoes in Czechia is specified by signalling using yellow water traps (Lambers traps, 500 × 330 mm).
Forecasting the occurrence of aphids, or the strength and intensity of aphid attacks in potato crops before the growing season, is very difficult due to the rapid development of the pest according to current weather conditions. The intensity of virus transmission in crops also depends on the developmental state of the crop (planting date, emergence of the crop) [34] and the sensitivity of the cultivated variety to the given virus [2]. Potato plants are most sensitive to virus transmission immediately after emergence, and higher sensitivity lasts until the beginning of physiological maturation of the crop. Therefore, seed crops should be continuously protected from aphids from emergence to artificial desiccation [35].
The study aimed to (i) evaluate data on the flight activity of Myzus persicae, Phorodon humuli, and Aphis nasturtii based on the data from suction traps from the locality of Lipa in 2002 to 2024, (ii) evaluate the flight activity of M. persicae, P. humuli, A. nasturtii, Aphis fabae, B. brassicae, Aulacorthum solani, and Macrosiphon euphorbiae according to the date from yellow water traps in 2019–2024, (iii) compare data on the flight activity of three aphid species from yellow water traps and sucking traps in 2019–2024, and (iv) evaluate seasonal patterns in the flight activity of these particular species based on meteorological factors.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Suction Trap

The flight of the aphids was monitored by a standard Johnson–Taylor suction trap (12.2 m high), which was placed in Lipa (49.552 N, 15.535 E, 505 m a.s.l.), over a 23-year period (2002–2024) (Figure 1). The suction trap operated from April to November, and weekly catches of the particular aphid species were published in the “Aphid Bulletin” [36]. The aphid catches were summed over the calendar weeks starting from Monday to Sunday. In this paper, the weeks are marked by the Julian day of Sunday in the weekly sampling intervals. To compare data from the particular periods between years (the numbers of aphids trapped over a particular sampling period), the aphid numbers were summed for the whole week of catching.

2.2. Yellow Water Trap

The flight of the aphids was also monitored by a yellow water trap placed in the Obciny locality (2019: 49.6238278 N, 15.5952353 E) over a 5-year period (2019–2024) (Figure 1). The yellow water trap was 13 km away from the suction trap. The yellow water trap was placed in a commercial potato field without insecticide treatment against aphids. In certain years, the trap was placed at the height of the upper leaf layer of the potato plants, 50 m from the edge of the field (Figure 2). The aphids were collected 3 times a week. For the statistical analyses, the numbers of caught aphid individuals in the yellow water trap were expressed as weekly catches to match the dates of catches in the suction trap. Seven aphid species were determined, i.e., M. persicae, P. humuli, A. nasturtii, A. fabae, B. brassicae, Aulacorthum solani, and Macrosiphon euphorbiae. The total number of the 7 aphid species monitored by the yellow water trap and the 3 species monitored by the suction trap identified per week was recorded.

2.3. Data Analyses

The flight activity of M. persicae, P. humuli, and A. nasturtii determined from aphid capture in a suction trap for the period 2002–2024 in Lipa locality was analysed. The flight activity of M. persicae, P. humuli, and A. nasturtii in the suction trap in the Lipa locality, i.e., the sum of captures each spring (from April 1st to June 30th), summer (from July 1st to August 31st), and autumn (from September 1st to November 30th), was analysed separately for aphid capture in the years 2002 to 2013 and in the years 2014 to 2024 using a Mann–Whitney test. This separate analysis was carried out to evaluate the flight activity in the period before (2002–2013) and after (2014–2024) the ban on neonicotinoids in 2013 [37].
The influence of average temperature and the sum of precipitation on the sum of M. persicae and P. humuli captures per year and in spring, summer, and autumn in the years 2002–2024 was analysed using the Pearson correlation test. Due to the low number of A. nasturtii captures, regression analysis for this species was not feasible. For M. persicae, these analyses were also carried out separately for captures in the years 2002–2013 and the years 2014–2024 concerning the ban of neonicotinoids [37].
A Pearson correlation test was used to evaluate the relation between the sum of captures of 3 aphid species, i.e., M. persicae, P. humuli, and A. nasturtii, in the suction trap and in the yellow water trap in the years 2019–2024. All of the flight activity data were analysed in XLSTAT 2023 software (Addinsoft USA, New York, NY, USA).
The species composition of the 7 aphid species was determined by the dominance index [25] and classes of dominance. The dominance index was calculated according to the following formula:
D = n/N.100 (in %), where n is the number of individuals of a given species present in the sample at a certain time and N is the number of all individual aphids caught with an aspirator at a certain time. Classes of dominance were established as D5: eudominants—more than 51%; D4: dominants—10.1–50%; D3: subdominants—5.1–10%; D2: recedents—1.1–5%; and D1: subrecedents—less than 1%.

3. Results

3.1. Flight Activity of M. persicae, P. humuli, and A. nasturtii from the Suction Trap

The total number of monitored aphid specimens captured in the suction trap at the Lipa site between 2002 and 2024 was 10,395. Of these, M. persicae accounted for 7928 individuals, P. humuli for 2003, and A. nasturtii for 464 (Table 1, Supplementary Table S1). The proportional representation of each species from the total captures was as follows: M. persicae—76%; P. humuli—19%; and A. nasturtii—5%. The abundance of these species varied considerably across the years.
The flight activity pattern of M. persicae, P. humuli, and A. nasturtii based on suction trap captures at the Lipa site during 2002–2024 is shown in Figure 3. The flight curve indicates a distinct increase in captures of M. persicae starting from 2014. The average annual capture of M. persicae between 2002 and 2013 was 136 individuals, while between 2014 and 2024, it rose to 572 individuals—an increase of approximately 420% (Table 1). For P. humuli, the flight pattern until 2013 exhibited a regular two-year cycle of increasing and decreasing in abundance. Since 2014, the abundance has increased, but the periodicity has changed to an irregular pattern or cycles of four to six years. The average annual capture of P. humuli from 2002 to 2013 was 57 individuals, compared to 120 individuals from 2014 to 2024 (Table 1), representing a 210% increase. Over the past 24 years, P. humuli abundance has increased 2.1-fold according to suction trap captures. This species is only minimally present in winter oilseed rape fields and thus could not have been significantly affected by the 2013 ban on neonicotinoid seed treatments [37]. The flight curve of A. nasturtii over the same period does not show substantial interannual fluctuations. Since 2014, a slight increase in abundance has been observed. The average annual capture of A. nasturtii from 2002 to 2013 was 14 individuals, whereas between 2014 and 2024 it was 27 individuals (Table 1), representing a 1.9-fold increase in abundance. Like P. humuli, the presence of A. nasturtii in oilseed rape is minimal, suggesting its abundance was also not significantly influenced by the neonicotinoid seed treatment ban.
The influence of temperature and precipitation on the abundance of M. persicae and P. humuli from the suction trap data was assessed. The correlation analysis between temperature and abundance for M. persicae during 2002–2024 is shown in Figure 4. Pearson’s analysis revealed a statistically significant correlation between the annual mean temperature and the total annual capture of M. persicae (rp = 0.563, p = 0.005, R2 = 0.317). In contrast, the correlation between the sum of precipitation per year and total annual capture of M. persicae was not significant (rp = −0.419, p = 0.05, R2 = 0.175). Further analysis for M. persicae showed a significant correlation between the annual mean temperature and the total annual capture of M. persicae during 2002–2013 (rp = 0.558, p = 0.06, R2 = 0.311), but not during 2014–2024 (rp = –0.085, p = 0.803, R2 = 0.007). These results suggest that the increase in M. persicae abundance during 2014–2024 was likely influenced by the neonicotinoid ban rather than climatic factors.
The correlation between mean annual temperature and total annual capture of P. humuli was not significant (rp = 0.233, p = 0.29, R2 = 0.05), and neither was the correlation between the sum of precipitation per year and total annual capture of P. humuli (rp = 0.258, p = 0.23, R2 = 0.07).
The correlation analysis between spring precipitation and spring abundance of M. persicae is shown in Figure 5. Pearson’s analysis revealed a statistically significant correlation between spring precipitation and the total spring capture of M. persicae (rp = −0.597, p = 0.003, R2 = 0.356). The abundance of M. persicae increased in the years with low precipitation in spring. The correlation between spring precipitation and total spring capture of P. humuli was not significant (rp = 0.117, p = 0.595, R2 = 0.014).
The correlation between summer or autumn precipitation and temperature and the abundance of M. persicae or P. humuli was not significant.

3.2. Flight Activity of Myzus persicae, Phorodon humuli, and Aphis nasturtii During the Spring, Summer, and Autumn Periods from the Suction Trap

Effective protection of seed potatoes against aphids, which are major vectors of potato viruses, requires close monitoring of aphid abundance in the spring and summer. These seasons correspond to the periods in which the risk of virus transmission to seed crops culminates. Therefore, seasonal captures (spring, summer, and autumn) of the three aphid species were analysed (Table 1).
For M. persicae, the observed increase in abundance during 2014–2024 compared to 2002–2013 was primarily due to a significant rise in autumn captures, which increased 6-fold on average (statistically highly significant at p = 0.002). Spring abundance also approximately doubled over the same period (statistically significant at p = 0.050), while summer captures increased 1.5-fold (statistically non-significant at p = 0.355) (Table 1). For P. humuli, the increase in abundance from 2014 to 2024 relative to 2002 to 2013 was driven primarily by a more than 3-fold increase in spring captures (Table 1). Similarly, the increase in A. nasturtii abundance over the same time frame was attributed to spring captures, which rose more than 2.5-fold (Table 1).

3.3. Species Composition and Flight Activity of Seven Aphid Species from the Yellow Water Trap

Over the monitoring period, the dominant species captured in the yellow water trap placed among potato crops were M. persicae, B. brassicae, and A. fabae (Table 2). Each of these three species accounted for more than 20% of the total captured individuals among the seven monitored species.
The dominance classes of individual species varied markedly across years. M. persicae was classified as eudominant in one year, dominant in four years, and recedent in 2021. B. brassicae was the most abundant species overall and was classified as either eudominant or dominant in four years, but fell into the recedent category in 2020 and 2023. In 2024, a local outbreak of B. brassicae occurred, with an exceptionally high number of individuals captured (noted with an asterisk in Table 2). Including this peak value in the statistical analysis would have skewed the results, so the 2024 capture number was replaced with the five-year average from previous seasons.
The third dominant species over the observation period was A. fabae, which was eudominant in one year, dominant in three years, subdominant in 2019, and recedent in 2022 (Table 2). The other three monitored species—Macrosiphum euphorbiae, P. humuli, and A. nasturtii—were classified as recedent from 2019 to 2024, although their abundance fluctuated between subrecedent and subdominant across the years. Based on these findings, the epidemiological importance of P. humuli and A. nasturtii as virus vectors appears to be decreasing. Aphis solani was the least abundant species, categorised as subrecedent, and reached the recedent class in only two years (2020 and 2022) (Table 2).

3.4. Life Cycles of Aphids as Vectors of Potato Viruses

Based on the results of our study, the life cycles of five aphid species, the main vectors of potato viruses, are specified. M. persicae populations in Czechia exhibit both holocyclic and anholocyclic life cycles. The holocyclic populations overwinter as eggs on primary hosts such as Prunus persica, while the anholocyclic populations overwinter parthenogenetically on secondary hosts like oilseed rape. Monitoring of M. persicae flight in the suction trap found the highest abundance in autumn and the lowest abundance in summer (Table 1). While the abundance of M. persicae in the suction trap was low in summer, the number of captures in the yellow water trap in potatoes was high. This indicates that the flight dispersal of M. persicae at low heights in potato fields prevailed in summer. Their potential as virus vectors fluctuates year to year depending on changes in population density.
Our data suggest that P. humuli is insensitive to rising temperatures. The abundance of P. humuli in the suction trap was highest in spring, lower in summer, and lowest in autumn. Although P. humuli must undertake autumn migration to winter hosts, very few individuals are captured in the suction trap during this time, suggesting that migration likely occurs at lower heights. Its primary hosts include a wide range of Prunus species, which are common throughout the Czech landscape. The species’ importance as a potato virus vector is expected to remain stable or decline.
Aphis nasturtii exhibits a homocyclic life cycle on buckthorn (Rhamnus spp.). Its abundance in the suction trap has been very low (Table 1). Historically, this aphid was considered a significant potato virus vector, but currently, its importance has diminished and is expected to continue to decline under changing environmental conditions.
Brevicoryne brassicae follows a holocyclic life cycle, with sexual generations that remain on secondary hosts such as oilseed rape, overwintering in the egg stage. Monitoring of B. brassicae in the yellow water trap has shown that this species is significant as a vector of potato viruses, and in some years is dominant (Table 2). Increased abundance of B. brassicae has been linked to the neonicotinoid ban, and its importance as a virus vector—both for rape and potatoes—is expected to grow.
Aphis fabae also follows a strictly holocyclic life cycle, overwintering as eggs on primary hosts such as spindle (Euonymus spp.). Based on captures in the yellow water trap, its population density varies considerably between years (Table 2). Its significance as a virus vector is variable but likely to increase following the ban on sugar beet seed treatments with neonicotinoids.

3.5. Use of Aphid Flight Monitoring in the Pest Management of Seed Potatoes

We conducted regression analysis to evaluate the relationship between total aphid captures in spring from the suction trap and total captures from the yellow water trap in summer. For M. persicae, the regression equation yielded an R2 = 0.08; for P. humuli, the R2 = 0.22. These low coefficients indicate that suction trap data for these species cannot reliably predict aphid abundance in yellow water traps or assess the risk of aphid occurrence in seed potato fields. Therefore, effective pest control of virus-vectoring aphids in potatoes necessitates direct monitoring of flight activity using yellow water traps.
Following the first peak in aphid presence in trays—typically coinciding with potato emergence—chemical control measures should be initiated. Subsequent treatments should be timed based on the intensity of aphid influxes of virus-vectoring species and field inspections using the 100-leaf test.
We assessed the relationship between spring suction trap captures of three aphid species (M. persicae, P. humuli, and A. nasturtii) and the total summer captures of aphids in the yellow water trap during each year from 2002 to 2024. No statistically significant correlations were found between these datasets, and it was not possible to build a model to predict aphid abundance in the yellow water trap based on the data from the suction trap.
Furthermore, results from aphid flight monitoring using both suction and yellow water traps could not be used to predict virus risk, as measured by the proportion of downgraded seed lots in the region (Table S2). The share of unapproved seed in a given year did not correlate with the abundance of the three main aphid vectors. Instead, virus incidence in seed potato fields was more strongly influenced by the quality and effectiveness of aphid chemical control.
Our analysis of the flight activity of virus-vectoring aphids between 2002 and 2024 did not yield a model capable of predicting either aphid abundance or the associated risk of virus transmission to seed potatoes.

4. Discussion

4.1. Flight Patterns of Aphid Species and Species Composition

The flight activity pattern of M. persicae based on suction trap captures at the Lipa indicates a distinct increase in captures of M. persicae starting from 2014. A similar study conducted in Czechia analysed the abundance of M. persicae and B. brassicae from suction trap data at five locations between 2004 and 2023 [29]. Following the ban on neonicotinoids in 2013 [37], trap captures for both aphid species significantly increased. In that study, the abundance of M. persicae increased 9-fold, while B. brassicae increased 1.2-fold [29]. Our findings confirm a 4.2-fold increase in the abundance of M. persicae beginning in 2014.
The significance of M. persicae as a virus vector for potatoes and other crops is increasing and is expected to continue rising—both due to warming climate conditions and the termination of neonicotinoid seed treatments for oilseed rape in Czechia. The ban on neonicotinoids influenced the yellow virus epidemic in sugar beet in the UK in 2020 [38]. In France, where seed treatments in sugar beet were discontinued in 2021, there was a subsequent outbreak of viral yellows [39].
In our study, the dominant species captured in the yellow water trap placed in potato crops were M. persicae, B. brassicae, and A. fabae. Among the seven species monitored in the yellow water trap in potatoes, four species—M. persicae, B. brassicae, A. fabae, and A. nasturtii—were also listed among the ten most significant aphid species in suction trap monitoring studies in Poland during 2019–2023 [26].

4.2. Life Cycles of Aphids as Vectors of Potato Viruses

Suction trap data indicate that, over a broader area, the autumn abundance of M. persicae is substantially higher than during the spring migration, consistent with findings from Poland and Silesia Provinces [26] and several suction traps from Czechia [29]. Autumn captures of M. persicae in suction traps in Czechia are dominated by return migration to secondary hosts rather than by the migration of sexual morphs to primary hosts. This observation is supported by the authors’ field data, which showed a high proportion of winged individuals in aphid colonies on drought-stressed lower leaves of oilseed rape.
To increase the effectiveness of protection against M. persicae and to refine the monitoring of insecticide-resistant populations, it would be necessary to determine the proportion of holocyclic and anholocyclic populations and the changes in their proportion due to overwintering conditions in individual years. In Scotland, M. persicae populations consist exclusively of asexual clones [23]. Yet suction traps still capture migrants from holocyclic populations. Microsatellite analyses of 14 clones in the Scottish anholocyclic population revealed that some clones were geographically restricted, others specialised on brassica crops, and some were found only in fields and not in traps [23]. Experimental work has demonstrated that temperature and photoperiod trigger the sexual phase in both holocyclic and partially asexual M. persicae genotypes. Genotypes with a sexual phase and those with partial loss of sexuality are not reproductively isolated and exchange genes to some extent with cereal aphids [40]. These findings suggest that warming autumn temperatures are driving partial loss of sexuality in M. persicae populations on oilseed rape. As the proportion of anholocyclic genotypes increases, the risk of overwinter survival even under suboptimal temperatures also rises. Phorodon humuli has a strictly holocyclic life cycle, overwintering as eggs on primary hosts. It shows high abundance in suction traps during spring, with declines in summer and autumn [26].
Aphid monitoring using pan or sticky traps is considered passive, primarily capturing aphids migrating or dispersing at higher altitudes [41]. In contrast, suction traps at 12.2 m are capable of intercepting migratory or dispersal flights associated with host plant changes, capturing individuals from a radius of up to 80 km from the trap site [42]. Although the practical application of data from suction traps or yellow water traps in pest management is limited, for certain aphid species, such monitoring provides valuable and actionable insights [39].
Under European conditions, linear regression models using cumulative aphid flight data have recently been employed in Switzerland to predict the incidence of potato viruses. Models developed for the leaf-curling plum aphid (Brachycaudus helichrysi) and the hop aphid (Phorodon humuli) demonstrated strong fits to virus occurrence data in potatoes. In the case of potato virus Y (PVY), findings suggested that early-migrating B. helichrysi, not M. persicae, was the primary vector in Switzerland. These results underscore the value of suction trap data for informing decision-making systems in the control of potato virus diseases [43].

4.3. Use of Aphid Flight Monitoring in the Pest Management of Other Crops

For numerous aphid species, suction trap captures can be used in agricultural pest management. Population density trends can be inferred from fluctuations in suction trap catches [22,23,24,27]. Long-term aphid trapping data have been incorporated into predictive models for estimating the occurrence risk of specific aphid species under field conditions [23,24].
In Czechia, long-term monitoring data from 1999 to 2015 were analysed for cereal aphids [27]. Although Rhopalosiphum padi was the most frequently captured species in suction traps, its actual incidence in wheat fields was low. In contrast, Sitobion avenae and Metopolophium dirhodum were underrepresented in traps but dominated wheat crops. These findings highlight the limitations of relying solely on suction trap data. Moreover, spring aphid captures were shown to be negatively affected by spring drought, even after high autumn captures. Predictive models based on suction trap data were found to only be reliable for M. dirhodum, but not for R. padi or S. avenae [27].
Suction traps have also been used to study the flight dynamics of R. padi, a key vector of barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV) in Czechia. In this case, the summer peak aphid abundance was determined by the preceding autumn temperatures, and an early onset of summer aphid migration positively influenced the migration length and led to abundant autumn migration [28]. Autumn suction trap data are particularly useful for timing chemical treatments against R. padi, the main BYDV vector [26].
In the UK, a model was developed in the 1980s to forecast virus yellows in sugar beet based on M. persicae migration [44]. In France, forecast models based on long-term suction trap data and winter/spring temperatures—combined with predictors related to aphid winter reservoirs—have also been developed for M. persicae, the main vector of sugar beet virus yellows [39].
Long-term suction trap data have been used to model the flight activity of the pollen beetle (Brassicogethes aeneus), allowing forecasts of its spring occurrence based on its previous summer abundance and winter temperatures [25]. These datasets are also valuable for assessing the effects of climate change. Historical data have been used to examine the impact of global warming on the phenology of aphids, including M. persicae [32].
Unlike M. persicae, autumn migration is much less pronounced in this species [26]. No differences in B. brassicae abundance have been observed in suction traps between warmer and cooler regions, contrary to M. persicae. Moreover, B. brassicae demonstrates significantly higher thermal tolerance [29].

5. Conclusions

According to the trapping of three aphid species, M. persicae, P. humuli, and A. nasturtii, in a suction trap, a significant increase in abundance was found in the period 2014–2024 compared to the period 2002–2013. The number of catches of aphids in the suction trap was higher in the period 2014–2024 than in the period 2002–2013 for M. persicae by 4.2 times, P. humuli by 2.1 times, and A. nasturtii by 1.9 times. For these three aphid species, there was no relationship between spring migration from winter hosts and dispersal of flight in potato crops trapped in a yellow water trap. Aphid captures in suction traps in spring could not be used to predict aphid risk in seed potatoes.
According to yellow water trap captures of seven aphid species placed in potato crops for the period 2019–2024, the dominant vector species of potato viruses were M. persicae, B. brassicae, and A. fabae. The abundance of these three aphid species was highly variable between years. In contrast, the abundance of P. humuli and A. nasturtii in the yellow water trap was very low. Other recedent species in the yellow water trap in potato were M. euphorbia and A. solani.
Monitoring of the flight activity of the seven aphid species listed in yellow water traps is recommended to be conducted in the seed potato growing region for management of aphid control as vectors of virus diseases. To increase the effectiveness of protection measures, it is recommended to monitor the viral vectors in aphids captured in yellow water traps. The results of monitoring aphid flight activity using suction traps and yellow water traps provide important insights for improving integrated pest management of seed potatoes. It is recommended to grow seed potato varieties that are more tolerant to virus diseases. In addition to classical methods of breeding potatoes for tolerance or resistance to viruses, gene-editing methods such as CRISPR/Cas9 should also be used.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy15071656/s1, Table S1: (a) Catches of Myzus persicae in a suction trap in the Lipa locality per year and in three periods (spring, summer, and autumn) and the percentage from the total catch in the year. (b) Catches of Phorodon humuli in a suction trap in the Lipa locality per year and in three periods (spring, summer, and autumn) and the percentage from the total catch in the year. (c) Catches of Aphis nasturtii in a suction trap in the Lipa locality per year and in three periods (spring, summer, and autumn) and the percentage from the total catch in the year; Table S2: Area of seed potatoes and percentage of downgraded and uncertified seed potatoes in 2002–2024 in Czechia.

Author Contributions

F.K. created the concept of the manuscript and wrote parts of the Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion. O.D. performed data processing and wrote part of the Introduction. J.S. prepared the meteorological data, carried out statistical analysis, and wrote parts of the Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion. S.R. and D.F. analysed data from the suction trap. P.D. and E.H. analysed data from the yellow water trap. A.S. determined the aphid species. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Czech Ministry of Agriculture, project number QK22010194.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Jana Vinciková and Anna Macaková for their technical assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors Petr Dolezal, Ervin Hausvater and Anna Sedova were employed by the company Potato Research Institute Havlickuv Brod, Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
CISTACentral Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture
PVYPotato virus Y
PLRVPotato leaf roll virus
PVAPotato virus A
PVMPotato virus M
PVSPotato virus S

References

  1. Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic. Situation and Outlook Report Potatoes; mze.gov.cz; Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic: Prague, Czech Republic, 2024; 47p, ISBN 978-80-7434-781-8. (In Czech). Available online: https://mze.gov.cz/public/portal/mze/publikace/situacni-vyhledove-zpravy/rostlinne-komodity/brambory/situacni-a-vyhledova-zprava-brambory-2023 (accessed on 25 February 2025).
  2. Kreuze, J.F.; Souza-Dias, J.A.C.; Jeevalatha, A.; Figueira, A.R.; Valkonen, J.P.T.; Jones, R.A.C. Viral Diseases in Potato. The Potato Crop: Its Agricultural, Nutritional and Social Contribution to Humankind; Campos, H., Ortiz, O., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 389–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. MacGillivray, M.E.; Aphids. Compendium of Potato Diseases; Hooker, W.J., Ed.; American Phytopathological Society: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1981; pp. 101–103. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bradley, R.H.E.; Rideout, D.W. Comparative Transmission of Potato Virus Y by Four Aphid Species that Infest Potato. Can. J. Zool. 1953, 31, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Alyokhin, A.; Drummond, F.A.; Sewell, G.; Storch, R.H. Differential Effects of Weather and Natural Enemies on Coexisting Aphid Populations. Environ. Entomol. 2011, 40, 570–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture. Overview of Registered Propagation Areas; Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture: Prague, Czech Republic, 2024; (In Czech). Available online: https://ukzuz.gov.cz/public/portal/ukzuz/osivo-a-sadba/publikace/prehled-prihlasenych-mnozitelskych-ploch/prehled-prihlasenych-ploch-v-roce-2024-1-a-2-cast (accessed on 11 April 2025).
  7. Holman, J. Host Plant Catalog of Aphids: Palaearctic Region; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Field, L.M.; Bass, C.; Davies, T.G.E.; Williamson, M.S.; Zhou, J.J. Aphid Genomics and Its Contribution to Understanding Aphids as Crop Pests. Aphids as Crop Pests, 2nd ed.; van Emden, H.F., Harrington, R., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2017; pp. 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kanavaki, O.M.; Margaritopoulos, J.T.; Katis, N.I.; Skouras, P.; Tsitsipis, J.A. Transmission of Potato Virus Y in Tobacco Plants by Myzus persicae nicotianae and M. persicae S. Str. Plant Dis. 2006, 90, 777–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Arshad, M.; Khan, H.A.A.; Hafeez, F.; Sherazi, R.; Iqbal, N. Predatory Potential of Coccinella septempunctata L. against Four Aphid Species. Pak. J. Zool. 2017, 49, 623–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Foster, S. Insecticide Resistance and Its Implication for Potato Production in the UK; British Potatoe Council: Oxford, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  12. Sigvald, R. The Relative Efficiency of Some Aphid Species as Vectors of Potato Virus Yo (PVYo). Potato Res. 1984, 27, 285–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kostiw, M. Investigation on the retention of potato viruses M and Y in two species of aphids (Myzus persicae Sulz. and Aphis nasturtii Kalt.). Potato Res. 1975, 18, 637–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kennedy, J.S.; Day, M.F.; Eastop, V.F. A Conspectus of Aphids as Vectors of Plant Viruses; Commonwealth Institute of Entomology: London, UK, 1962. [Google Scholar]
  15. PP1/230(1) Standard; Aphids on Potato. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO): Paris, France, 2004. Available online: https://pp1.eppo.int/standards/PP1-230-1 (accessed on 11 April 2025).
  16. Johnson, C.G. Migration and Dispersal of Insects by Flight; Methuen: London, UK, 1969; p. 592. [Google Scholar]
  17. Taylor, L.R. Insect Migration, Flight Periodicity and the Boundary Layer. J. Anim. Ecol. 1974, 43, 225–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Taylor, L.R. The Distribution of Insects at Low Levels in the Air. J. Anim. Ecol. 1960, 29, 45–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Carter, W. Ecological Aspects of Plant Virus Transmissions. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1961, 6, 347–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Davis, T.S.; Abatzoglou, J.T.; Bosque-Perez, N.A.; Halbert, S.E.; Pike, K.; Eigenbrode, S.D. Differing Contributions of Density Dependence and Climate to the Population Dynamics of Three Eruptive Herbivores. Ecol. Entomol. 2014, 39, 566–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Taylor, L.R. Aphid Forecasting and the Rothamsted Insect Survey. J. R. Agric. Soc. Engl. 1977, 138, 75–97. [Google Scholar]
  22. McVean, R.I.K.; Dixon, A.F.G.; Harrington, R. Causes of Regional and Yearly Variation in Pea Aphid Numbers in Eastern England. J. Appl. Entomol. 1999, 123, 495–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kasprowicz, L.; Malloch, G.; Pickup, J.; Fenton, B. Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Myzus persicae Clones in Fields and Suction Traps. Agric. Forest Entomol. 2008, 10, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fabre, F.; Dedryver, C.-A.; Plantegenest, M.; Hulle, M.; Rivot, E. Hierarchical Bayesian Modelling of Plant Colonisation by Winged Aphids: Inferring Dispersal Processes by Linking Aerial and Field Count Data. Ecol. Model. 2010, 221, 1770–1778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shortall, C.R.; Cook, S.M.; Mauchline, A.L.; Bell, J.R. Long-Term Trends in Migrating Brassicogethes aeneus in the UK. Pest Manag. Sci. 2024, 80, 2294–2305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Roik, K.; Tratwal, A.; Malas, S.; Bocianowski, J. Monitoring and Signaling of the Most Important Aphid Species in the Territory of Greater Poland and Silesia Provinces. Agriculture 2024, 14, 2260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Honek, A.; Martinkova, Z.; Brabec, M.; Saska, P. Predicting Aphid Abundance on Winter Wheat Using Suction Trap Catches. Plant Protect. Sci. 2020, 56, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jarosova, J.; Zelazny, W.R.; Kundu, J.K. Patterns and Predictions of Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus Vector Migrations in Central Europe. Plant Dis. 2019, 103, 2057–2064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Slavikova, L.; Fryc, D.; Kundu, J.K. Analysis of Twenty Years of Suction Trap Data on the Flight Activity of Myzus persicae and Brevicoryne brassicae, Two Main Vectors of Oilseed Rape Infection Viruses. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fryc, D.; Zahradnikova, M. Spectrum of captured aphidomorphic insects of fir stands. Rep. For. Res. 2024, 69, 1–12, (In Czech with English). [Google Scholar]
  31. Altermatt, F. Climatic Warming Increases Voltinism in European Butterflies and Moths. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2010, 277, 1281–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wu, Y.x.; Li, J.j.; Liu, H.h.; Qiao, G.x.; Huang, X.l. Investigating the Impact of Climate Warming on Phenology of Aphid Pests in China Using Long-Term Historical Data. Insects 2020, 11, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Zhao, F.; Zhang, W.; Hoffmann, A.A.; Ma, C.-S. Night Warming on Hot Days Produces Novel Impacts on Development, Survival and Reproduction in a Small Arthropod. J. Anim. Ecol. 2014, 83, 769–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Radcliffe, E.B.; Ragsdale, D.W. Aphid-Transmitted Potato Viruses: The Importance of Understanding Vector Biology. Am. J. Pot. Res. 2002, 79, 353–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hausvater, E.; Dolezal, P.; Bastova, P. Aphids—Transmission and Protection Against Potato Virus Diseases. Practical Information. Vyzkumny Ustav Bramborarsky Havlickuv Brod. 2014. (In Czech). Available online: https://www.vubhb.cz/cs/knihovna/prakticke-informace/msice-prenaseci-virovych-chorob-brambor-a-ochrana-proti-nim (accessed on 11 April 2025).
  36. Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture. Aphid Bulletin, mze.gov.cz. 2018; (In Czech). Available online: https://mze.gov.cz/public/app/srs_pub/fytoportal/public/#rlp|so|aphb|uvod (accessed on 23 April 2025).
  37. EC (European Commission). Commission implementing regulation (EU) No 485/2013 of 24 May 2013 amending Imple-menting Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards the conditions of approval of the active substances clothianidin, thia-methoxam and imidacloprid, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing those active substances. O. J. Eur Union 2013, 139, 12–26. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2013/485/oj/eng (accessed on 20 June 2025).
  38. Dewar, A.M.; Qi, A. The virus yellow epidemic in sugar beet in the UK in 2020 and the adverse effect of the EU ban on neonicotinoids on sugar beet production. Outlooks Pest Manag. 2021, 32, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Luquet, M.; Poggi, S.; Buchard, C.; Plantegenest, M.; Tricault, Y. Predicting the Seasonal Flight Activity of Myzus persicae, the Main Aphid Vector of Virus Yellows in Sugar Beet. Pest Manag. Sci. 2023, 79, 4508–4520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Simon, J.C.; Leterme, N.; Latorre, A. Molecular markers linked to breeding system differences in segregating and natural populations of the cereal aphid Rhopalosiphum padi L. Mol. Ecol. 1999, 8, 965–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Heathcote, G.D. The Comparison of Yellow Cylindrical, Flat and Water Traps, and of Johnson Suction Traps, for Sampling Aphids. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1957, 45, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Allison, D.; Pike, K.S. An Inexpensive Suction Trap and Its Use in an Aphid Monitoring Network. J. Agric. Entomol. 1988, 5, 103–107. [Google Scholar]
  43. Steinger, T.; Goy, G.; Gilliand, H.; Hebeisen, T.; Derron, J. Forecasting Virus Disease in Seed Potatoes Using Flight Activity Data of Aphid Vectors. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2015, 166, 410–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Werker, A.R.; Dewar, A.M.; Harrington, R. Modelling the Incidence of Virus Yellows in Sugar Beet in the UK in Relation to Numbers of Migrating Myzus persicae. J. Appl. Ecol. 1998, 35, 811–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 15 01656 g001
Figure 1. Map of the location of the suction trap (Lípa) and the yellow water trap (Obciny) for monitoring aphid flight activity.
Figure 1. Map of the location of the suction trap (Lípa) and the yellow water trap (Obciny) for monitoring aphid flight activity.
Agronomy 15 01656 g001
Agronomy 15 01656 g002
Figure 2. Yellow water trap placed in a potato field in the Obciny locality for monitoring aphid flight activity.
Figure 2. Yellow water trap placed in a potato field in the Obciny locality for monitoring aphid flight activity.
Agronomy 15 01656 g002
Agronomy 15 01656 g003
Figure 3. Catches of Myzus persicae, Phorodon humuli, and Aphis nasturtii in a suction trap in 2002–2024 in the Lipa locality (number of individuals per year).
Figure 3. Catches of Myzus persicae, Phorodon humuli, and Aphis nasturtii in a suction trap in 2002–2024 in the Lipa locality (number of individuals per year).
Agronomy 15 01656 g003
Agronomy 15 01656 g004
Figure 4. Linear regression of total catches of Myzus persicae per year by mean temperature per year (°C): R = 0.563, y = −5.299 + 1.053x.
Figure 4. Linear regression of total catches of Myzus persicae per year by mean temperature per year (°C): R = 0.563, y = −5.299 + 1.053x.
Agronomy 15 01656 g004
Agronomy 15 01656 g005
Figure 5. Linear regression of total catches of Myzus persicae each spring by the sum of the amount of precipitation each spring (mm): R = −0.597, y = 6.044 + (−0.017x).
Figure 5. Linear regression of total catches of Myzus persicae each spring by the sum of the amount of precipitation each spring (mm): R = −0.597, y = 6.044 + (−0.017x).
Agronomy 15 01656 g005
Table 1. Mean number of aphid individuals of three species (Myzus persicae, Phorodon humuli, and Aphis nasturtii) caught in a sucking trap in the Lipa locality in spring (IV, V, VI), summer (VII, VIII), and autumn (IX, X, XI) in 2002–2013 (1) and 2014–2024 (2) (sd = standard deviation). Values labelled with different letters (a,b) indicate statistically significant difference.
Table 1. Mean number of aphid individuals of three species (Myzus persicae, Phorodon humuli, and Aphis nasturtii) caught in a sucking trap in the Lipa locality in spring (IV, V, VI), summer (VII, VIII), and autumn (IX, X, XI) in 2002–2013 (1) and 2014–2024 (2) (sd = standard deviation). Values labelled with different letters (a,b) indicate statistically significant difference.
Myzus persicaePhorodon humuliAphis nasturtii
PeriodMean
Catch/Period		Mann–Whitney TestMean
Catch/Period		Mann–Whitney TestMean
Catch/Period		Mann–Whitney Test
Spring119.0 ± 25.92 aU = 34, p = 0.05035.17 ± 37.18 aU = 23, p = 0.0074.75 ± 8.30 aU = 19, p = 0.002
Spring239.0 ± 32.81 a111.27 ± 75.83 b12.73 ± 7.76 b
Summer136.33 ± 41.52 aU = 50.50, p = 0.35517.83 ± 30.83 aU = 74.5, p = 0.6157.17 ± 4.04 aU = 62, p = 0.82
Summer259.73 ± 77.52 a6.09 ± 8.75 a9.00 ± 7.62 a
Autumn181.17 ± 122.02 aU = 18, p = 0.0024.00 ± 4.67 aU = 69, p = 0.8662.08 ± 2.43 aU = 45.5, p = 0.209
Autumn2473.09 ± 449.13 b2.55 ± 2.34 a5.18 ± 6.71 a
2002–2013136.50 ± 117.83 aU = 13, p = 0.00157.00 ± 56.31 aU = 32, p = 0.03714.00 ± 10.34 aU = 26.5, p = 0.013
2014–2024571.82 ± 479.04 b119.91 ± 77.72 b26.91 ± 11.98 b
2002–2024 mean344.7 87.09 20.17
2002–2024 total7928 2003 464
Table 2. Species composition of seven aphid species caught in the yellow water trap in the 2019–2024 period in the Obciny locality (number of aphids, % of aphids, and class of dominance).
Table 2. Species composition of seven aphid species caught in the yellow water trap in the 2019–2024 period in the Obciny locality (number of aphids, % of aphids, and class of dominance).
Number of Aphids/%/YearTotal Number%
Species2019D2020D2021D2022D2023D2024D2019–2024 D
M. persicae4513.2449161.07564.38224240.2045520.07421449.20465333.714
A. nasturtii00.00110.6711510.95450.83110.361153.452371.912
P. humuli41.18274.702107.303132.16251.822184.142572.942
A. fabae216.1834228.1945842.344264.32219972.6354811.03439420.344
A. solani00.00121.34210.73191.50210.36120.461150.771
M. euphorbiae195.59321.342139.49300.00131.092173.912542.792
B. brassicae25173.82542.6823424.82430751.005103.652121 *27.82472737.534
Total number340 149 137 602 274 435 1937100.00
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kocourek, F.; Douda, O.; Stara, J.; Rychly, S.; Fryc, D.; Dolezal, P.; Hausvater, E.; Sedova, A. Modelling Flight Activity of Aphids in Seed Potatoes Using Suction Trap and Yellow Water Trap for Risk Assessment of Virus Diseases. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1656. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15071656

AMA Style

Kocourek F, Douda O, Stara J, Rychly S, Fryc D, Dolezal P, Hausvater E, Sedova A. Modelling Flight Activity of Aphids in Seed Potatoes Using Suction Trap and Yellow Water Trap for Risk Assessment of Virus Diseases. Agronomy. 2025; 15(7):1656. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15071656

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kocourek, Frantisek, Ondrej Douda, Jitka Stara, Svatopluk Rychly, David Fryc, Petr Dolezal, Ervin Hausvater, and Anna Sedova. 2025. "Modelling Flight Activity of Aphids in Seed Potatoes Using Suction Trap and Yellow Water Trap for Risk Assessment of Virus Diseases" Agronomy 15, no. 7: 1656. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15071656

APA Style

Kocourek, F., Douda, O., Stara, J., Rychly, S., Fryc, D., Dolezal, P., Hausvater, E., & Sedova, A. (2025). Modelling Flight Activity of Aphids in Seed Potatoes Using Suction Trap and Yellow Water Trap for Risk Assessment of Virus Diseases. Agronomy, 15(7), 1656. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15071656

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop