Next Article in Journal
Trade-Offs in Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis: Disease Resistance, Growth Responses and Perspectives for Crop Breeding
Previous Article in Journal
A Dynamic Decision-Making Tool for Calculating the Optimal Rates of N Application for 40 Annual Crops While Minimising the Residual Level of Mineral N at Harvest
Previous Article in Special Issue
Geographic and Research Center Origins of Rice Resistance to Asian Planthoppers and Leafhoppers: Implications for Rice Breeding and Gene Deployment
Article Menu
Issue 4 (December) cover image

Export Article

Agronomy 2017, 7(4), 74; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy7040074

Article
Resistance to Wheat Curl Mite in Arthropod-Resistant Rye-Wheat Translocation Lines
1
Department of Entomology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
2
Department of Plant Protection, College of Agriculture, University of Baghdad, Al-Jadriyah, Baghdad 10059, Iraq
3
National Research Agriculture Institute, Instituo Nacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, Quito 170516, Ecuador
4
International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, New Delhi 110 067, India
5
Department of Agronomy, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Rd, Taipei 10617, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 29 September 2017 / Accepted: 8 November 2017 / Published: 15 November 2017

Abstract

:
The wheat curl mite, Aceria toschiella (Keifer), and a complex of viruses vectored by A. toschiella substantially reduce wheat yields in every wheat-producing continent in the world. The development of A. toschiella-resistant wheat cultivars is a proven economically and ecologically viable method of controlling this pest. This study assessed A. toschiella resistance in wheat genotypes containing the H13, H21, H25, H26, H18 and Hdic genes for resistance to the Hessian fly, Mayetiola destructor (Say) and in 94M370 wheat, which contains the Dn7 gene for resistance to the Russian wheat aphid, Diuraphis noxia (Kurdjumov). A. toschiella populations produced on plants containing Dn7 and H21 were significantly lower than those on plants of the susceptible control and no different than those on the resistant control. Dn7 resistance to D. noxia and H21 resistance to M. destructor resulted from translocations of chromatin from rye into wheat (H21—2BS/2RL, Dn7—1BL/1RS). These results provide new wheat pest management information, indicating that Dn7 and H21 constitute resources that can be used to reduce yield losses caused by A. toschiella, M. destructor, D. noxia, and wheat streak mosaic virus infection by transferring multi-pest resistance to single sources of germplasm.
Keywords:
wheat; Mayetiola destructor; Diuraphis noxia; resistance genes; antibiosis

1. Introduction

Wheat serves as a staple food vital nutritional source for one-third of the world’s population [1], yet continues to suffer grain yield reductions of ~20% per year from arthropods and arthropod-vectored viruses [2]. The majority of these losses result from feeding damage by Hessian fly, Mayetiola destructor; Russian wheat aphid, Diuraphis noxia (Kurdjumov); and wheat curl mite, Aceria toschiella (Keifer) [3]; as well as from A. toschiella vectored transmission of Wheat streak mosaic virus [4], Wheat mosaic virus and Triticum mosaic virus [5,6,7].
Plant resistance to arthropods is a widely accepted method to manage pest populations and decrease wheat yield losses in a cost-effective and ecologically friendly manner [8]. Interactions between resistant plants and avirulent arthropods involve incompatible arthropod—plant interactions mediated by constitutively produced and arthropod-induced plant defense proteins synthesized by resistance gene products [9]. Several genes from barley, rye, wheat and wild wheat relatives provide functional resistance against A. toschiella, D. noxia or M. destructor [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. However, the evolution of virulence in each pest causes continual delays in the development of additional new resistant cultivars [18,19].
The Cmc1 and Cmc4 genes for resistance to A. toschiella were transferred to bread wheat from goatgrass, Aegilops tauschii, (Coss.) Schmal, the D genome donor of bread wheat [20,21] and Cmc2 was transferred from Agropyron elongatum (Host.) Beauv. [22]. Cmc3 [21] originated from the translocation of a segment of the short arm of rye chromosome 1 (1RS) onto the long arm of wheat chromosome 1A, resulting in 1AL/1RS translocation line used to create the wheat cultivar Amigo [23] which is also contains the Gb2 and Gb6 genes for resistance to the greenbug, Schizaphis graminum Rondani [24]. An A. toschiella virulent biotype rendered Cmc3 ineffective within 5 years [18].
Over thirty genes from wheat and its relatives convey M. destructor resistance [17]. However, only plants containing H13, H18, H21, H25, H26, and Hdic are consistently effective against M. destructor populations in the Great Plains wheat production area of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas [25]. Resistance in H13 and H26 was derived from Ae. tauschii [26], in H18 from durum wheat, Triticum turgidum L. var. durum [27], and in Hdic was transferred from Spelt wheat, T. turgidum ssp. dicoccum [16].
In contrast, resistance in H21 and H25 was derived from rye, Secale cereale L. [28,29]. H21 in the winter wheat cultivar Hamlet resulted from the translocation of chromatin from the distal 20% segment of the long arm of rye chromosome 2 (2RL) onto the short arm of wheat B genome chromosome 2 (2BS), resulting in a 2BS/2RL translocation line [28,30]. The development of cultivars with H25 involved the transfer of genetic material from the long arm of rye chromosome (6RL) to the long arm of either chromosome 4 of the wheat A genome, resulting in a 4AL/6RL translocation line, or chromosome 4 of the wheat B genome, resulting in either 4BL/6RL or 6BL/6RL translocation lines [23]. Chen et al. [31] used the breeding line KS92-WGRC20, which carries the 4AL/6RL translocation, to develop Cataldo spring wheat. Marais et al. [32] determined that the Dn7 D. noxia resistance gene from rye was transferred into wheat from the long arm of rye chromosome 1 to form a 1BL/1RS translocation. Dn7 in the cultivar 94M370 provides resistance against all U.S. and South African D. noxia biotypes [33,34,35].
Given the evidence of rye-based resistance in cultivars containing H21, H25 and Dn7, we hypothesized was that rye genetic material may also confer A. toschiella resistance. Such resistance could provide opportunities to develop new cultivars with broad-based resistance to wheat arthropod pests. The objective of this study was to determine whether A. toschiella resistance exists in wheat cultivars carrying Dn7, H13, H18, H21, H25, H26, or Hdic.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Materials

The H13, H18, H21, H25, H26, and Hdic M. destructor resistance genes and the Dn7 D. noxia resistance were evaluated for A. toschiella resistance, using the A. toschiella-resistant control OK05312 that contains the Cmc4 resistance gene, and susceptible controls ‘Jagger’ and ‘Ike’. The USDA/ARS Plant Science Laboratory at Kansas State University provided seed of cultivars or breeding lines containing H genes. Seed of the wheat cultivars 94M370 containing the Dn7 gene for D. noxia resistance, OK05312, and susceptible Ike and susceptible Jagger were obtained from the USDA/ARS Small Grains Repository, Aberdeen, ID; Dr. Brett Carver, Oklahoma State University; and the Kansas Crop Improvement Association, respectively. Plants in Experiment I were grown in pots containing Sungrow Metro-Mix 350 (Sun Gro Horticulture, Agawan, MA, USA) and plants in Experiments II and III were grown in pots containing Pro-Mix ‘BX’ (Premier ProMix, Lansing, MI, USA). All plants were fertilized once with 20-20-20 (N-P-K) and grown at 22 ± 2 °C, 40–50% relative humidity, and a photoperiod of 14:10 (light:dark) hours, which are optimum conditions for plant and mite growth and development [12,36,37]. Experiments I and III were conducted in a greenhouse and Experiment II was conducted in a growth chamber.

2.2. Biotype Origin and Verification

Experiment I used biotype 1 adults from a colony derived from a field collection in Hays, KS (voucher specimen no. 215, Kansas State University Museum of Entomological and Prairie Arthropod Research). Experiments II and III used biotype 1 originating from a field collection in Hughes County South Dakota supplied courtesy of Dr. Ada Szczepaniec, South Dakota State University, and biotype 2 originating from a field collection in Cheyenne County Nebraska. Both biotypes were collected in 2014. Prior to each experiment, the identity of each biotype was verified by DNA sequencing with an ITS1 marker developed by Reference [38].

2.3. Experiment I. Response of A. toschiella to M. destructor Resistance Genes in No-Choice Tests

The reaction of plants containing H13, H18, H21, H25, H26 or Hdic were compared to susceptible Ike and resistant OK05312 controls (Table 1) for A. toschiella susceptiblity. Seeds were sown in 6 × 6 × 5.5 cm plastic pots. At the two-leaf stage, 10 pairs of plants of each genotype of similar height were selected to test for antibiosis and tolerance to A. toschiella. One plant of each pair was infested with a leaf piece containing ~30 A. toschiella biotype 1 adults. The second plant of each pair served as an un-infested control. The infested plant of each genotype was randomly placed in each of 10 cages covered with 36 μ mite-proof screen. Plants were arranged at random in each cage and separated to prevent plant-to-plant contact. Un-infested plants were similarly placed in 10 additional mite-proof cages. The experiment was arranged in a randomized complete block design with 10 replicates (cages), where cages were the blocking factor.
At 14 days post-infestation, plant height was measured in infested and un-infested plants and the presence or absence of leaf folding was determined in infested plants. All plants were then cut at the soil level, and leaves of un-infested plants were placed in individual aluminum foil pouches and dried at 60 °C for 12 days. Leaves of infested plants were individually placed on each of two 3.9 × 7.5 cm sheets of sticky tape attached to each of two sheets of gridded blue paper. The two sheets of gridded paper, tape and leaves were placed in each of two 50 mL centrifuge tubes, labeled by treatment and replication and stored uncapped for 8 days. As leaves dried, mites moved off leaves and were trapped on the sticky tape. Leaves of infested plants were then removed from tape, placed in an aluminum bag and dried for 4 more days at 60 °C. Leaf dry weights of all plants were then measured with an XS-310D analytical balance (1 mg sensitivity, Denver Instrument Company, Bohemia, NY, USA). Trapped total numbers of A. toschiella adults and nymphs were estimated as a measure of antibiosis using a Nikon SMZ645 stereoscope (Nikon Instruments Inc., Melville, NY, USA) at 10× magnification, by combining the counts on each pair of blue gridded paper sheets.
Percent proportional plant height change (% PHC), percent proportional plant dry weight change (% DWT) and plant tolerance index (TI) were measured to estimate tolerance to mite feeding [36]. % PHC was calculated as [(height of un-infested plant − height of a paired infested plant at the time of cutting the plants/height of un-infested plant] × 100. % DWT was calculated as [(dry weight of un-infested plant − dry weight of a paired infested plant)/dry weight of un-infested plant] × 100 [39]. TI was calculated as % DWT/total number of A. toschiella biotype 1 produced on infested plants at the end of the experiment. TI values calculated from plants with no mites were considered missing values.

2.4. Experiment II. Response of A. toschiella to M. destructor Resistance Genes in Choice Tests

In August and September 2013, each of 10 plastic pots (replicates) with the dimensions 10 × 10 × 7 cm, each housing, one plant each containing H13, H18, H21, H25, H26, Hdic, OK05312 or Jagger were arranged at random around the periphery of the pot to avoid leaves touching throughout the experiment. The emerging second leaf of each plant was infested with a piece of wheat leaf containing a mixture of 30–35 A. toschiella biotype 1 adults and nymphs. The 10 replicate pots were arranged at random in a screen-ventilated plastic cage. The experiment was arranged in a randomized complete block design where pots were the blocking factor. Leaf folding and mean total A. toschiella biotype 1 per plant at 7 days post-infestation were determined as in Experiment I. The 7-day post-infestation interval was selected based on previous results [36], which demonstrated that adults reach and feed on plants within 7 days in antixenosis (choice) experiments.

2.5. Experiment III. Response of A. toschiella to the D. noxia-Resistant Dn7 Gene in No-Choice Tests

The reaction of Dn7 to A. toschiella in comparison to the OK05312-resistant control and the susceptible control Jagger was assessed in May and June 2014. Independent assays were performed for A. toschiella biotypes 1 and 2. Each assay consisted of four plants of each cultivar, evenly distributed in each of three cages covered with 36 μ mite-proof screen, for a total of nine cages in the experiment. The emerging second leaf of each plant was infested with leaf pieces containing ~30 adult A. toschiella biotype 1 or biotype 2 reared on Jagger plants before infestation. Cages were placed on greenhouse benches in a random fashion and were considered the blocking factor in each experiment. At 14 days post-infestation, plants were cut, placed on sticky tape and gridded paper, and counted to determine numbers of mites present as described previously. A cage mean was calculated from the four plants of each variety in a cage.

3. Statistical Analysis

In Experiment I, numbers of A. toschiella, % PHC, % DWT and TI were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model where wheat genotype was the fixed effect and cages were the random effect. The assumption of normality and homogeneity of variances was checked using studentized residuals and the Kolmogorv-Smirnov test for each response variable [40,41]. The Kenward-Rogers method was used to estimate the degrees of freedom [42]. The number of A. toschiella was fitted using a Poisson distribution to account for skewness of the data, and over dispersion was assessed based on a maximum-likelihood Pearson χ2/degrees of freedom statistic [43]. The model for % proportional plant height change, % proportional plant dry weight change and plant tolerance index was modified to account for heterogeneous residual variances. Variance groups were made with treatment combinations having similar residual dispersion for each response variable. The choice of model with the best fitting heterogeneous variance specification was based on the Bayesian information criterion [44].
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) and Tukey-Kramer tests were used for multiple comparisons when the type III test of fixed effect was significant (p < 0.05). Fisher’s LSD test was used for the numbers of A. toschiella since this was an exploratory experiment, and the Tukey-Kramer test was too conservative to detect differences between the treatments [45]. Fisher’s exact test was used to make paired comparisons of leaf-folding between controls and infested genotypes. Analyses were performed using PROC GLIMMIX and PROC FREQ in SAS software v.9.4 [46,47].
No transformations were necessary for data in Experiment II. Where F-tests were significant at α = 0.05, the mean numbers of A. toschiella on different plant genotypes were separated at (p < 0.05) by the Tukey’s Studentized Range HSD test. Pearson χ2 tests were performed to detect differences between genotypes with different H genes to A. toschiella-induced leaf folding. When significant, paired comparisons of leaf folding between control and test cultivars were performed using a χ2 Fisher’s exact test.
In Experiment III, biotype 1 no-choice data with Dn7 fit a normal distribution and were not transformed for analysis. Biotype 2 data were transformed to natural logarithms for ANOVA and back-transformed for the presentation of mean numbers of mites. Where F-tests were significant at α = 0.05, the mean numbers of A. toschiella on cultivars were separated at (p < 0.05) by the Tukey-Kramer test. Data in Experiments II and III were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using PROC GLIMMIX and PROC FREQ in SAS software v.9.4 [46,47].

4. Results

4.1. Response of A. toschiella to M. destructor-Resistance Genes in No-Choice Tests

There were significant differences in the numbers of A. toschiella, % proportional plant dry weight change and tolerance index between genotypes (F = 2.65, df = 7, 34.7, p < 0.05; F = 4.82, df = 7, 48.04, p < 0.05; and F = 2.55, df = 7, 31.15, p < 0.05, respectively) (Table 1). Differences between genotypes for % proportional plant height change were non-significant (F = 2.22, df = 7, 40.42, p > 0.05). Mean A. tosichella numbers were significantly lower on plants of the cultivar Hamlet, containing the H21 gene from rye, in comparison to plants of all other genotypes containing H genes or the susceptible control cultivar Jagger, and A. toschiella numbers on H21 plants were not significantly different than those on OK05312 resistant control plants (Table 1).
H18 plants had a significantly lower mean % proportional plant dry weight change than plants of either control, H25 plants, or H13 plants (Table 1). In contrast, H26 plants exhibited a significantly lower mean plant tolerance index than plants of the OK05312 control of or plants containing H21. Mean A. toschiella—induced leaf folding was significantly greater on plants of all H genotypes compared to the resistant OK05312 control, with the exception of H21, which sustained only 10% leaf folding compared to 0% folding on resistant control plants (Table 2).

4.2. Response of A. toschiella to M. destructor-Resistance Genes in Choice Tests

There were significant differences in the mean total number of A. tosichella biotype 1 adults produced in choice tests using the OK05312 resistant control, the Jagger susceptible control, and plants with different H genes (F = 4.9; df = 7.57; p < 0.01). The percentage of plants with folded leaves also differed significantly between plants with H genes and controls (Pearson χ2 = 42.7; df = 7; p < 0.01). Plants containing H21, H25, and Hdic produced significantly lower A. tosichella populations than those on susceptible Jagger control plants and were no different from the population on OK05312 resistant control plants (Table 2). H21, H25, and Hdic plants also displayed significantly fewer folded leaves than Jagger susceptible control plants (Table 3).

4.3. Response of A. toschiella to the D. noxia-Resistant Dn7 Genes in No-Choice Tests

The mean number of A. toschiella biotype 1 mites on Jagger, 93M370 and OK05312 differed significantly in assay 1 (F = 101.4; df = 2, 6; p < 0.05) and in assay 2 (F = 50.4; df = 2, 6; p < 0.05). In both assays, Dn7 plants produced significantly lower biotype 1 populations than those on susceptible Jagger plants, but no different than those on Cmc4 (OK05312) resistant control plants (Table 4). The mean number of biotype 2 mites on all three genotypes also differed significantly in assay 1 (F = 18.6; df = 2, 6; p < 0.05) and in assay 2 (F = 6.3; df = 2, 6; p < 0.05). However, in assay 2, biotype 2 populations were significantly lower on Dn7 plants than on Jagger plants.

5. Discussion

The ability of the A. toschiella-virus complex to reduce wheat yields is continuously driven by the immense reproductive potential of A. toschiella on numerous wild and cultivated grass hosts [48]. Attempts to manage A. toschiella with acaracides or delayed planting continue to fail [49,50], and the most effective management tactic to date continues to be A. toschiella-resistant cultivars. Although A. toschiella biotype 2 is virulent to Cmc3 [18], Cmc4 remains an effective tool for wheat cultivar improvement [51].
Results of the present study demonstrate that A. toschiella biotype 1 populations are significantly reduced by the rye-based M. destructor resistance in plants containing H21 compared to plants of the susceptible control Jagger in both choice- and no-choice experiments (Table 1 and Table 2). Furthermore, the level of A. toschiella population reduction by H21 was not significantly different from that in plants of the Cmc4 mite resistant control. H21 plants also exhibited a level of A. toschiella leaf folding similar to Cmc4 plants, but significantly less of than that in Jagger plants in both choice- and no-choice experiments. A. toschiella resistance in H21 appears to be based primarily on properties that limit mite population increases, as tolerance measurements detected no differences between plants containing H21, Cmc4 or the susceptible Jagger control.
A. toschiella resistance in Dn7 and H21 may be related to a dual effect of each gene on more than one pest or the interplay of one or more rye genes from each rye-wheat translocation. D. noxia is a phloem feeder, while A. toschiella and M. destructor feed on and within epidermal tissue cells, respectively, suggesting that Dn7 may provide resistance to epidermal tissue cell feeders as well. This hypothesis was beyond the scope of the current study and will be tested in additional future experiments.
The results of the current experiments provide useful management information to producers about wheat cultivar selection in areas of chronic yield reduction due to A. toschiella, M. destructor, D. noxia, and wheat streak mosaic virus infection. Further research is in progress to identify gene(s) conferring A. toschiella resistance.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Ruth Beck, South Dakota State University Agronomy Field Specialist, in Pierre, SD for providing A. toschiella biotype 1 for this research. Financial support for this research was made possible by Kansas State University, the Kansas Wheat Commission and the Government of Ecuador. The authors thank Jason Ellis for the review of an early draft of the manuscript.

Author Contributions

D.K.S., W.-P.C. and S.G.-C. conceived and designed the experiments; L.M.A.-R., L.K.K., S.G.-C., D.K.S. and W.-P.C. performed the experiments; L.M.A.-R., L.K.K. and S.G.-C. analyzed the data; L.M.A.-R., L.K.K., S.G.-C., and C.M.S. wrote the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Dixon, J.; Braun, H.-J.; Kosina, P.; Crouch, J. Wheat Facts and Futures 2009; CIMMYT: Texcoco de Mora, Mexico, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  2. Oerke, E.C. Crop losses to pests. J. Agric. Sci. 2006, 144, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Berzonsky, W.A.; Ding, H.; Haley, S.D.; Lamb, R.J.; McKenzie, R.I.H.; Ohm, H.W.; Patterson, F.L.; Peairs, F.B.; Porter, D.R.; Ratcliffe, R.H.; et al. Breeding wheat for resistance to insects. Plant Breed. Rev. 2003, 22, 221–296. [Google Scholar]
  4. Slykhuis, J.T. Aceria tulipae Keifer (Acarina: Eriophyidae) in relation to the spread of wheat streak mosaic. Phytopathology 1955, 45, 116–128. [Google Scholar]
  5. Seifers, D.L.; Martin, T.; Harvey, T.L.; Fellers, J.P.; Michaud, J. Identification of the wheat curl mite as the vector of Triticum mosaic virus. Plant Dis. 2009, 93, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bockus, W.W.; Appel, J.A.; Bowden, R.L.; Fritz, A.K.; Gill, B.S.; Martin, T.J.; Sears, R.G.; Seifers, D.L.; Brown-Guedira, G.L.; Eversmeyer, M.G. Success stories: Breeding for wheat disease resistance in Kansas. Plant Dis. 2001, 85, 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. French, R.; Stenger, D.C. Evolution of wheat streak mosaic virus: Dynamics of population growth within plants may explain limited variation. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2003, 41, 199–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Smith, C.M. Plant Resistance to Arthropods—Molecular and Conventional Approaches; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; 423p. [Google Scholar]
  9. Smith, C.M.; Clement, S.L. Molecular bases of plant resistance to arthropods. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2012, 57, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Schlegel, R.; Kynast, R. Confirmation of a 1A/1R wheat-rye chromosome translocation in the wheat variety ‘Amigo’. Plant Breed. 1987, 98, 57–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Whelan, E.D.P.; Thomas, J.B. Chromosomal location in common wheat of a gene (Cmc1) from Aegilops squarrosa that conditions resistance to colonization by the wheat curl mite. Genome 1989, 32, 1033–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Malik, R.; Smith, C.M.; Brown-Guedira, G.L.; Harvey, T.L.; Gill, B.S. Assessment of Aegilops tauschii for reistance to biotypes of wheat curl mite (Acari; Eriophyidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2003, 96, 1329–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Turanli, F.; Ilker, E.; Dogan, F.E.; Askan, L.; Istipiller, D. Inheritance of resistance to Russian Wheat Aphid (Diuraphis noxia Kurdjumov) in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Turk. J. Field Crops 2012, 17, 171–176. [Google Scholar]
  14. Du Toit, F. Resistance in wheat (Triticum aestivum) to Diuraphis noxia (Homoptera: Aphididae). Cereal Res. Commun. 1987, 15, 175–179. [Google Scholar]
  15. Du Toit, F. Inheritance of resistance in two Triticum aestivum lines to Russian wheat aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae). J. Econ. Entomol. 1989, 82, 1251–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Liu, X.M.; Brown-Guedira, G.L.; Hatchett, J.H.; Owuoche, J.O.; Chen, M.S. Genetic characterization and molecular mapping of a Hessian fly-resistance gene transferred from T. turgidum ssp. dicoccum to common wheat. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2005, 111, 1308–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Liu, X.M.; Fritz, A.K.; Reese, J.C.; Wilde, G.E.; Gill, B.S.; Chen, M.S. H9, H10, and H11 compose a cluster of Hessian fly-resistance genes in the distal gene-rich region of wheat chromosome 1AS. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2005, 110, 1473–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Harvey, T.L.; Seifers, D.L.; Martin, T.J.; Brown-Guedira, G.L.; Gill, B.S. Survival of wheat curl mites on different sources of resistance in wheat. Crop Sci. 1999, 39, 1887–1889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Haley, S.D.; Peairs, F.B.; Walker, C.B.; Rudolph, J.B.; Randolph, T.L. Occurrence of new Russian wheat aphid biotype in Colorado. Crop Sci. 2004, 44, 1589–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Thomas, J.B.; Conner, R.L. Resistance to colonization by the wheat curl mite in Aegilops squarrosa and its inheritance after transfer to common wheat. Crop Sci. 1986, 26, 527–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Malik, R.; Brown-Guedira, G.L.; Smith, C.M.; Harvey, T.L.; Gill, B.S. Genetic mapping of wheat curl mite resistance genes Cmc3 and Cmc4 in common wheat. Crop Sci. 2003, 43, 644–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Whelan, E.D.P.; Hart, G.E. A spontaneous translocation that confers wheat curl mite resistance from decaploid Agropyron elongatum to common wheat. Genome 1988, 30, 289–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sebesta, E.E.; Wood, E.A.; Porter, D.R.; Webster, J.A.; Smith, E.L. Registration of Amigo wheat germplasm resistant to greenbug. Crop Sci. 1994, 34, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lu, H.; Rudd, J.C.; Burd, J.D.; Weng, Y. Molecular mapping of greenbug resistance genes Gb2 and Gb6 in T1AL.1RS wheat-rye translocations. Plant Breed. 2010, 129, 472–476. [Google Scholar]
  25. Chen, M.S.; Echegaray, E.; Whitworth, J.; Wang, H.; Sloderbeck, P.; Knutson, A.; Giles, K.; Royer, T. Virulence analysis of Hessian fly populations from Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. J. Econ. Entomol. 2009, 102, 774–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Cox, T.S.; Hatchett, J.H. Hessian fly resistance gene H26 transferred from Triticum tauschii to common wheat. Crop Sci. 1994, 34, 958–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Amri, A.; Hatchett, J.H.; Cox, T.S.; El Bouhssini, M.; Sears, R.G. Resistance to Hessian fly from North African durum wheat germplasm. Crop Sci. 1990, 30, 378–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Friebe, B.; Hatchett, J.H.; Sears, R.G.; Gill, B.S. Transfer of Hessian fly resistance from ‘Chaupon’ rye to hexaploid wheat via a 2BS/2RL wheat-rye chromosome translocation. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1990, 79, 385–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Friebe, B.; Hatchett, J.H.; Gill, B.S.; Mukai, Y.; Sebesta, E.E. Transfer of Hessian fly resistance from rye to wheat via radiation-induced terminal and intercalary chromosomal translocations. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1991, 83, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Cainong, J.C.; Zavatsky, L.E.; Chen, M.S.; Johnson, J.; Friebe, B.; Gill, B.S.; Lukaszewski, A.J. Wheat-rye T2BS·2BL-2RL recombinants with resistance to Hessian Fly (H21). Crop Sci. 2010, 50, 920–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chen, J.; Souza, E.J.; Zemetra, R.S.; Bosque-Pérez, N.A.; Guttieri, M.J.; Schotzko, D.; O’Brien, K.L.; Windes, J.M.; Guy, S.O.; Brown, B.D.; et al. Registration of ‘Cataldo’ Wheat. J. Plant Reg. 2009, 3, 264–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Marais, G.F.; Horn, M.; DuToit, F. Intergeneric transfer (rye to wheat) of a gene(s) for Russian wheat aphid resistance. Plant Breed. 1994, 113, 265–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lapitan, N.L.V.; Li, Y.-C.; Peng, J.; Botha, A.-M. Fractionated extracts of Russian wheat aphid eliciting defense responses in wheat. J. Econ. Entomol. 2007, 100, 990–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Weiland, A.A.; Peairs, F.B.; Randolph, T.L.; Rudolph, J.B.; Haley, S.D.; Puterka, G.J. Biotypic diversity in Colorado Russian wheat aphid populations. J. Econ. Entomol. 2008, 101, 569–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Jankielsohn, A. Changes in the Russian wheat aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) biotype complex in South Africa. J. Econ. Entomol. 2016, 109, 907–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Garcés Carrera, S.; Davis, H.; Aguirre-Rojas, L.; Murugan, M.; Smith, C.M. Multiple categories of resistance to wheat curl mite (Acari: Eriophyidae) expressed in accessions of Aegilops tauschii. J. Econ. Entomol. 2012, 105, 2180–2186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Murugan, M.; Cardona, P.S.; Duraimurugan, P.; Whitfield, A.E.; Schneweis, D.; Starkey, S.; Smith, C.M. Wheat curl mite resistance: Interactions of mite feeding with wheat streak mosaic virus infection. J. Econ. Entomol. 2011, 104, 1406–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Malik, R. Molecular Genetic Characterization of Wheat Curl Mite, Aceria tosichella Keifer (Acari: Eriophyidae), and Wheat Genes Conferring Wheat Curl Mite Resistance. Ph.D. Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA, 2001; 144p. [Google Scholar]
  39. Dixon, A.G.O.; Bramel-Cox, P.J.; Reese, J.C.; Harvey, T.L. Mechanisms of resistance and their interactions in twelve sources of resistance to biotype E Greenbug (Homoptera: Aphididae) in sorghum. J. Econ. Entomol. 1990, 83, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Massey, F.J. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1951, 46, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gbur, E.E.; Stroup, W.W.; McCarter, K.; Durham, S.; Young, L.J.; Christman, M.; West, M.; Kramer, M. Analysis of Generalized Linear Mixed Models in the Agricultural and Natural Resources Sciences; American Society of Agronomy/Soil Science Society of America/Crop Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kenward, M.G.; Roger, J.H. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 1997, 53, 983–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Stroup, W.W. Rethinking the analysis of non-normal data in plant and soil science. Agron. J. 2015, 107, 811–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Schwarz, G. Estimating the Dimension of a Model. Ann. Stat. 1978, 6, 461–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Milliken, G.A.; Johnson, D.E. Designed Experiments. In Analysis of Messy Data, 2nd ed.; Chapman & Hall: New York, NY, USA, 2009; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  46. SAS Institute. The GLIMMIX Procedure. In SAS/STAT 9.2 User’s Guid; SAS Institue Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  47. SAS Institute. The FREQ procedure. In SAS/STAT 9.2 User’s Guid; SAS Institue Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  48. Coutts, B.A.; Strickland, G.R.; Kehoe, M.A.; Severtson, D.L.; Jones, R.A.C. The epidemiology of Wheat streak mosaic virus in Australia: Case histories, gradients, mite vectors, and alternative hosts. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2008, 59, 844–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Morgan, G.; Patrick, C.; Steddom, K.; Rush, C.M. Wheat Streak Mosaic Virus and High Plains Virus; Texas Cooperative Extension Publication: College Station, TX, USA, 2005; E-337. [Google Scholar]
  50. Velandia, M.; Rejesus, R.M.; Jones, D.C.; Price, J.A.; Workneh, Z.F.; Rush, C.M. Economic impact of Wheat streak mosaic virus in the Texas High Plains. Crop Prot. 2010, 29, 699–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Carver, B.F.; Smith, C.M.; Chuang, W.-P.; Hunger, R.M.; Edwards, J.T.; Yan, L.; Brown-Guedira, G.; Gill, B.S.; Bai, G.; Bowden, R.L. Registration of OK05312, a high-yielding hard winter wheat donor of Cmc4 for wheat curl mite resistance. J. Plant Reg. 2016, 10, 75–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Mean (Lower, Upper 95% CI) total A. tosichella biotype 1 adults and nymphs, percent proportional plant dry weight change a and plant tolerance index b of M. destructor resistant wheat cultivars, the susceptible cultivar Ike and the A. tosichella resistant cultivar OK05312 at 14 days post-A. tosichella-infestation in no-choice antibiosis and tolerance tests.
Table 1. Mean (Lower, Upper 95% CI) total A. tosichella biotype 1 adults and nymphs, percent proportional plant dry weight change a and plant tolerance index b of M. destructor resistant wheat cultivars, the susceptible cultivar Ike and the A. tosichella resistant cultivar OK05312 at 14 days post-A. tosichella-infestation in no-choice antibiosis and tolerance tests.
GenotypeResistance GeneMean (Lower, Upper 95% CI)
Mean Number of A. tosichella c% Dry Weight Change cTolerance Index d
OK05312Cmc44.7 (1.7, 13.2) a8 (−4.7, 20.7) a3.6 (−0.9, 8.1) b,c
HamletH215.8 (2.1, 16.1) a2 (−38.2, 42.2) a,b5.4 (0.9, 10) c
KSWGRC26H2661.7 (23, 165.4) b−3.3 (−16, 9.4) a,b−1.4 (−3.9, 1.1) a
MollyH1368 (25.2, 183.7) b4 (−8.7, 16.7) b−1.3 (−3.8, 1.2) a,b
IkeNone94.7 (35.8, 250.5) b11.8 (−0.9, 24.4) b0.1 (−0.05, 0.3) a,b
KS92WGRC20H25125.5 (47.4, 332) b15.8 (3.1, 28.5) b0.3 (0.1, 0.4) a,b
KS99WGRC42Hdic151.5 (57.3, 400.2) b−8.3 (−21, 4.4) a,b−0.03 (−0.2, 0.1) a,b
RedlandH18177.7 (67.2, 469.6) b−25.5 (−38.2, −12.8) a−0.5 (−1.5, 0.4) a,b
a % plant dry weight change = [(weight of un-infested plant − weight of paired infested plant/weight of un-infested plant] × 100. b Tolerance index = % plant dry weight change/total number of A. toschiella biotype 1 produced on infested plants. c Means followed by a different letter within a column are significantly different based on Tukey-Kramer mean separation test (p < 0.05). d Means followed by a different letter within a column are significantly different based on Fisher’s LSD mean separation test (p < 0.05).
Table 2. Percent A. tosichella biotype 1—induced folding in wheat plants with M. destructor resistance genes, the OK05312 (Cmc4) resistant control and the susceptible Ike control at 14 days post—A. tosichella infestation in a no-choice test.
Table 2. Percent A. tosichella biotype 1—induced folding in wheat plants with M. destructor resistance genes, the OK05312 (Cmc4) resistant control and the susceptible Ike control at 14 days post—A. tosichella infestation in a no-choice test.
GenotypeH Gene% Folded Leaf Plantsχ2 Fisher’s Exact Test
IkeOK05312
OK05312Cmc40ns-
HamletH2110nsns
KSWGRC26H2650ns*
MollyH1360ns*
KS99WGRC42Hdic80ns**
KS92WGRC20H2590***
RedlandH1880ns**
IkeNone30-ns
ns: not significant at p > 0.05; * significant at p < 0.05; ** significant at p < 0.01.
Table 3. Mean ± SE number A. tosichella biotype 1 and A. tosichella—induced folding in plants of M. destructor resistant cultivars, the resistant control OK05312 and the susceptible control Jagger at 7 d post-infestation in a choice test.
Table 3. Mean ± SE number A. tosichella biotype 1 and A. tosichella—induced folding in plants of M. destructor resistant cultivars, the resistant control OK05312 and the susceptible control Jagger at 7 d post-infestation in a choice test.
GenotypeResistance GeneMean ± SE Number of A. tosichella Adults% Leaf Foldingχ2 Fisher’s Exact Test
JaggerOK05312
OK05312 Cmc432.4 ± 60.8 a0**-
HamletH2188.1 ± 64.1 a,b0**ns
KS99WGRC42Hdic89.7 ± 55.9 a,b20**ns
KS92WGRC20H2596.0 ± 58.2 a,b0**ns
KSWGRC26H26218.2 ± 55.9 a,b,c60ns*
RedlandH18246.5 ± 55.9 a,b,c100ns**
MollyH13261.8 ± 55.9 b,c50ns*
Jagger None328.1 ± 55.9 c90-**
Means followed by a different letter differ significantly based on Tukey-HSD mean separation test (p < 0.05). ns: not significant at p > 0.05; * significant at p < 0.05; ** significant at p < 0.01.
Table 4. Mean ± SE number of A. tosichella biotype 1 and 2 on wheat genotypes with genes for resistance to A. toschiella (Cmc4) or D. noxia (Dn7), and the susceptible control Jagger at 14 d post-infestation in a no-choice test.
Table 4. Mean ± SE number of A. tosichella biotype 1 and 2 on wheat genotypes with genes for resistance to A. toschiella (Cmc4) or D. noxia (Dn7), and the susceptible control Jagger at 14 d post-infestation in a no-choice test.
GenotypeResistance GeneMean ± SE Number of A. toschiella
Biotype 1Biotype 2
Assay 1Assay 2Assay 1Assay 2
OK05315Cmc421.4 ± 7.1 b22.8 ± 17.1 b36.1 ± 30.2 b83.6 ± 34.0 a,b
93M370Dn741.9 ± 7.1 b16.6 ± 17.1 b28.6 ± 30.2 b14.3 ± 34.0 b
Jaggernone153.8 ± 7.1 a133.5 ± 17.1 a257.3 ± 30.2 a163.1 ± 34.0 a
Means in each column followed by a different letter differ significantly, Tukey—Kramer mean separation test (p < 0.05).

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Agronomy EISSN 2073-4395 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top