Next Article in Journal
Calibration and Experiment of Discrete Element Simulation Parameters for Powdered Organic Fertilizer Based on Coarse-Graining
Previous Article in Journal
Early-Season Rice Varieties with Low Amylose Content Can Achieve Low Chalkiness and Comparable Yield to High-Amylose Ones in the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River
Previous Article in Special Issue
Integrated Effects of Tillage Intensity, Genotype, and Weather Variability on Growth, Yield, and Grain Quality of Winter Wheat in Maize–Wheat Rotation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 16
Issue 12
10.3390/agriculture16121256
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Cultivar-Dependent Associational Effects in Wheat Cultivar Mixtures Influence Alate Aphid Captures and the Presence of Virus Vectors

by
Ivana Lalićević
1,*,
Svjetlana Janković Šoja
2,
Jasmina Bačić
1,
Velemir Ninkovic
3,
Olivera Petrović-Obradović
2 and
Andja Radonjić
2,*
1
Institute for Plant Protection and Environment, Teodora Drajzera 9, 11040 Belgrade, Serbia
2
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade, Nemanjina 6, Zemun, 11080 Belgrade, Serbia
3
Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7044, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2026, 16(12), 1256; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16121256 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 9 April 2026 / Revised: 2 June 2026 / Accepted: 5 June 2026 / Published: 7 June 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Research on Cropping Technologies for Achieving High-Yield and High-Quality Wheat)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

We investigated whether sowing a mixture of wheat cultivars could reduce the occurrence of winged aphids in crops. Aphid presence was monitored using yellow water traps. Three wheat cultivars—Simonida, NS 40S, and NS Rani otkos—and their mixtures were used in the study. The results indicate that alate aphid captures in cultivar mixtures are often lower than in pure stands. However, this effect is not consistent across all mixtures, and the impact of individual varieties and their mixtures varies between the autumn and spring vegetation phases. In autumn, aphid species that overwinter on wheat and serve as potential virus vectors dominate, primarily Rhopalosiphum padi and Sitobion avenae, while in spring, polyphagous aphid species are more prevalent. During autumn, the least attractive cultivar for vector species was NS Rani otkos, which, in mixtures with the other two cultivars, also decreased its attractiveness. With lower vector abundance, the potential for viral infection is reduced. In spring, the number of alate aphids and vectors captured in mixtures was lower than in pure stands. The reduction in aphid presence in mixtures was particularly pronounced during weeks with the highest aphid abundance.

1. Introduction

Aphids (Hemiptera, Aphididae) are significant pests in wheat crops; therefore, understanding their ecology and the factors influencing their abundance provides the foundation for effective population control [1]. Globally, 33 aphid species have been recorded on wheat [2]. Aphids on wheat cause direct damage through feeding, but greater economic losses are incurred as a result of their role as virus vectors [3,4]. The most significant viruses are Barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV) and Cereal yellow dwarf virus (CYDV) [5,6], while the most significant vector species are Rhopalosiphum padi L. and Sitobion avenae (Fabr.) [6,7,8]. Rhopalosiphum padi and S. avenae are globally widespread and consistently present on wheat in Europe [2].
One of the key reasons for the efficiency of aphids in virus transmission is their host-seeking behavior, specifically their exploratory probing. The host selection process in aphids is a complex phenomenon involving sensory and behavioral mechanisms [9]. All of their senses are integrated into the host selection process. Aphids visually perceive potential host plants; moreover, certain colors, such as yellow, are more attractive to them [10]. This behavior has been exploited in the design of colored traps used to monitor their activity. However, volatile organic compounds emitted by plants play a crucial role in the recognition, localization, and acceptance of the host by aphids [11,12]. Aphids recognize their host plant through its volatile emissions; however, plants themselves can also respond to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by neighboring plants, leading to morphological and physiological changes [13,14]. Studies have shown that VOCs released by damaged plants can induce defensive responses in undamaged ones, whereas VOCs from undamaged plants can increase the resistance of neighboring plants to aphids or alter trophic interactions [15,16]. These findings, applied in practice through crop diversification such as intercropping or cultivar mixtures, confirm a lower presence of aphids in diversified crops [17,18]; specifically, crop mixtures can reduce aphid abundance without the application of chemical treatments [19]. In the final stage of host selection, aphids use short probes to assess whether the plant upon which they have landed is a suitable host [9]. If visual and volatile cues can disrupt aphid host-finding and deter landing, aphid abundance on plants and the development of subsequent populations may be reduced. In addition, a lower frequency of exploratory probing could help limit virus transmission.
Aphids recognize their host plant through its volatile emissions; however, plants can also respond to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by neighboring plants, resulting in morphological and physiological changes [13,14]. Studies show that VOCs released by damaged plants can trigger defense responses in undamaged plants, while VOCs from undamaged plants can increase the resistance of neighbouring plants to aphids or alter trophic interactions [15,16]. These findings, applied in practice through crop diversification such as intercropping or cultivar mixtures, confirm the lower presence of aphids in diversified crops [17,18], which may be due to the appearance of the plant [10] or its specific odor [16]. In particular, crop mixtures can reduce aphid abundance without the use of chemical treatments [19]. In the final stage of host selection, aphids use short probes to assess whether the plant they have landed on is a suitable host [9]. If visual and volatile cues disrupt host-finding by aphids and deter them from landing, aphid abundance on plants and the development of subsequent populations may be reduced. In addition, a lower frequency of probing could help limit virus transmission.
Cultivar mixtures of the same plant species—in this case, wheat—represent an additional strategy within integrated pest management, as they can contribute to the reduction in aphid populations and diseases while simultaneously supporting natural enemy populations [20,21,22]. The increased genotypic diversity provided by a mixture of varieties can enhance productivity and resilience across a wide range of systems, which is particularly important for agriculture. In this context, resistance to herbivores, stable productivity, and tolerance of environmental stress are essential components of sustainable crop production [20,23]. However, their efficacy depends on specific cultivar combinations, indicating that these positive effects are not universal [18,20]. The decision to land on a plant depends on several factors, with the plant’s appearance and odor being the most important. The combination of different varieties with their specific characteristics can make host selection difficult for aphids [24]. Research on the behavior of alates in wheat is limited and primarily focuses on aphid preferences for specific cultivars, specifically the volatiles emitted by individual cultivars [25,26].
Since preventing aphid landing on host plants is an effective strategy for controlling their populations, particularly regarding virus transmission, this study investigated differences in aphid captures between monocultures and specific wheat cultivar mixtures. In addition, seasonal variation in these effects (autumn/winter versus spring/summer) and differences in the responses of virus vector species were examined.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Field Experiment

Monitoring of aphid flight activity was conducted during the 2020/2021 season throughout the autumn/winter and spring/summer periods at the experimental field of the Tamiš Research and Development Institute in Pančevo, Serbia (44°56′12.27″ N, 20°43′23.19″ E). The experiment comprised 18 plots measuring 6 × 10 m, with a 1 m plant-free zone between plots. Three winter wheat cultivars from Serbia (Simonida, NS Rani otkos, and NS 40S) and their combinations (Simonida/NS Rani otkos, Simonida/NS 40S, and NS Rani otkos/NS 40S) were used as treatments, totaling six treatments with three replicates each. The seeding density for all treatments was 600 seeds per square meter. In mixtures, the varieties were combined in a 50:50 ratio, with the seeds mixed before sowing. The treatments were arranged into three replicates, each containing six different treatments, ensuring that identical treatments were not adjacent. Figure 1a shows a drone-recorded image of the experimental field. The first row displays six treatments arranged as A, B, C, D, E, and F. In the next iteration, the treatment order is B, C, D, E, F, and A, while the third iteration starts with treatment C, followed by D, E, F, and A, and ends with B (A—Simonida, B—NS Rani otkos, C—NS 40S, D—Simonida/NS Rani otkos, E—Simonida/NS 40S, F—NS Rani otkos/NS 40S). Monitoring of alate flight activity was conducted using yellow water traps (YWT) (diameter 21 cm, high 14 cm). The traps were filled halfway with water supplemented with a small amount of liquid detergent and positioned in the central portion of each experimental unit. At the onset of the growing season, when plants were at early developmental stages, the traps were placed directly on the soil surface. As the plants increased in height the traps were gradually raised to remain within the visual field of the aphids (Figure 1b).
Traps were installed during autumn immediately after wheat emergence in early November and were removed in December, after the cessation of autumn aphid flight activity. The traps were subsequently redeployed in spring at the onset of aphid activity in April and removed in June, when the wheat transitioned from the milk to the wax ripeness stage. The traps were inspected weekly. The liquid contents were filtered, and the captured insects were transferred to plastic containers containing 75% ethanol. No pesticides were applied throughout the experimental period.

2.2. Laboratory Analysis

Analysis of the sample contents was performed at the Laboratory of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade. The collected specimens were identified using standard taxonomic keys for aphid alates [27,28,29]. The status of certain species as wheat virus vectors was confirmed in [2].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The influence of wheat cultivars and their mixtures on alate aphid captures during the autumn/winter and spring/summer periods, as well as differences in the abundance of vector aphids between seasons, was analyzed using one-way and two-way ANOVAs. A one-way ANOVA was used in Section 3.2 to test differences in the number of individuals of aphid vector species between the two seasons (autumn/winter and spring/summer), and to test the influence of cultivar mixture on vector abundance during the autumn/winter period (Section 3.2.1) and the spring/summer period (Section 3.2.2). A two-way ANOVA was used to analyze aphid abundance depending on the variety and their mixtures and individual weeks during the autumn/winter period (Section 3.1.1) and the spring/summer period (Section 3.1.2). In Section 3.2.2, when testing the influence of different varieties and their mixtures and four specific weeks during the spring/summer period on aphid abundance, a two-way ANOVA was also used. When the data did not meet the conditions required for variance analysis (normal distribution within samples and equal variances between samples), mathematical transformations such as logarithmization was applied until the necessary conditions were satisfied. The assumption of normal data distribution was checked using the Shapiro–Wilk test, and the assumption of equality of variances was checked using the Levene test. Transformed data were used for post hoc analysis, while raw data were used for graphical display of mean values and standard deviations for individual varieties and their mixtures. Tukey’s HSD test was used to compare mean values among treatments. Data processing was performed using the Statistica software package (Version 10) [30].

3. Results

During the study, 854 specimens were collected, and 41 distinct taxa were determined. Among these, 29 different species were identified, while 12 taxa were determined to the genus level. Damaged specimens were not identified and are listed in the table as Aphididae, totaling 82 individuals. A greater number of specimens were collected during the autumn (Table 1).
The most numerous were extremely polyphagous aphid species, such as Myzus persicae, Aphis gossypii, and A. craccivora, as well as grain aphids R. padi and S. avenae. Due to the pronounced morphological similarity between A. pomi and A. spiraecola, accurate species identification based on morphological characteristics is often not possible; therefore, individuals collected during the spring are recorded as the A. pomi/spiraecola taxon.

3.1. Alate Aphid Presence by Treatment and Season

3.1.1. The Effect of Cultivar Mixture on the Presence of Alate Aphids During the Autumn/Winter Period

When the effects of cultivars and their mixtures on the total abundance of aphid species captured in traps were analyzed across individual sampling dates, neither treatment (F5,48 = 1.328, p = 0.268) nor the interaction between treatment and sampling date (F15,48 = 1.286, p = 0.247) had a statistically significant effect. However, the effect of sampling date was statistically significant (F3,48 = 7.951, p = 0.0002). The highest number of aphid alates was collected during the first week of monitoring in early November, after which their population declined until the beginning of December, when the aphid autumn flight period ended. Figure 2 shows the comparison of treatment means by Tukey’s test within the observed dates, and it was found that there were no statistically significant differences between the cultivars and their mixtures across the dates.

3.1.2. The Effect of Cultivar Mixture on the Presence of Alate Aphids During the Spring/Summer Period

In the analysis of differences in alate aphid captures between cultivars and their mixtures on individual sampling dates, it was determined that both treatments (F5,108 = 3.363, p = 0.007) and dates (F8,108 = 7.886, p = 0.0000) have a statistically significant influence, as well as their interaction (F40,108 = 1.7992, p = 0.009). A further analysis of the number of aphids caught in the traps in different treatments throughout the spring revealed statistically significant differences between the Simonida/NS Rani otkos mixture and the corresponding monocultures (Figure 3). The number of aphids caught in the mixture was significantly lower than in both the Simonida monoculture (p = 0.046) and the NS Rani otkos monoculture (p = 0.046).
The number of captured aphids varied significantly between treatments in certain weeks (Figure 4). At the beginning of May, the number of aphids in the variety Simonida was statistically significantly higher than in its mixture with the NS 40S (p = 0.045) and NS Rani otkos (p = 0.045), as was the number of aphids in the pure crop NS 40S compared to its mixture with Simonida (p = 0.045). The highest number of individuals was recorded on 18 May, during the period of mass migration from primary woody hosts to secondary hosts. The highest number of aphids was found in the monoculture of NS Rani otkos, where statistically significantly more aphids were collected than in all other treatments (p < 0.005). The number of captured aphids was significantly higher in the pure crop of Simonida cultivar than in its mixture with NS 40S (p = 0.045) and NS Rani otkos (p = 0.008). Also, in the mixture of Simonida and NS 40S, significantly fewer aphids were collected than in pure NS 40S crops (p = 0.045). In the following week, the highest number of aphids was in the Simonida variety, statistically significantly higher than in its mixtures with NS 40S (p = 0.045) and NS Rani otkos (p = 0.045). At the beginning of June, the number of aphids decreased, but Simonida remained more attractive than its mixtures with NS 40S (p = 0.045) and NS Rani otkos (p = 0.008).

3.2. Vector Presence by Treatment and Season

Among the aphid species that act as virus vectors, a total of 247 individuals were captured, belonging to the species Metopolophium dirhodum, Myzus persicae, Rhopalosiphum maidis, Rhopalosiphum padi, Rhopalomyzus poae, Schizaphis graminum, and Sitobion avenae (Table 2).
Sitobion avenae, R. padi and M. persicae were present throughout the season, but were more numerous in autumn. Rhopalosiphum maidis, R. poae, and S. graminum were recorded only during the autumn/winter period. Metopolophium dirhodum was present with only three individuals during the autumn/winter period and one during the spring/summer period. Seasonal analysis of aphid vector presence (autumn/winter and spring/summer) showed that their number is statistically significantly higher during the autumn/winter period than in the spring/summer period (F1,34 = 46.700, p < 0.001).

3.2.1. The Effect of Cultivar Mixture on the Presence of Vectors During the Autumn/Winter Period

When only the autumn vegetation period was analyzed, and vector abundance was compared among treatments, no statistically significant differences were found either among individual monocultures or between monocultures and their mixtures (F5,12 = 2.659, p = 0.077) (Figure 5).
Although differences were not statistically significant, aphid abundance tended to be lower in certain treatments (Table 3). The highest number of individuals during this period was recorded on the cultivar Simonida (53), whereas the lowest number of individuals was observed on the cultivar NS Rani otkos (8 individuals). In the mixture of the Simonida cultivar with NS Rani otkos, there was a slight decrease in the number of aphids caught compared to the Simonida monoculture. Similarly, in the mixture of NS Rani otkos with NS 40S, fewer individuals were caught than in the NS 40S monoculture.

3.2.2. The Effect of Cultivar Mixture on the Presence of Vectors During the Spring/Summer Period

When data for all weeks in spring were analyzed, statistically significant differences were observed between certain cultivars and their mixtures. The analysis showed significantly reduced vector captures in cultivar mixtures (F5,12 = 6.77; p = 0.003). The results showed that aphid abundance on the Simonida cultivar was significantly higher than that in the Simonida/NS 40S mixture (p = 0.026) and the Simonida/NS Rani otkos mixture (p = 0.009). Similarly, aphid abundance on the NS Rani otkos cultivar was significantly higher than in the Simonida/NS 40S mixture (p = 0.041) and the Simonida/NS Rani otkos mixture (p = 0.015). Additionally, aphid abundance in the Simonida/NS Rani otkos mixture differed significantly from the abundance in the NS 40S/NS Rani otkos mixture (p = 0.038). No statistically significant differences were found between the other cultivars and mixtures (p > 0.05) (Figure 6).
Considering the four weeks of the spring/summer period (6–26 May) during which aphid abundance reached its peak, both treatment (F5.48 = 3.4286, p = 0.009) and sampling week (date) (F3.48 = 3.7007, p = 0.018) had statistically significant effects, whereas their interaction was not significant (F15.48 = 1.5782, p = 0.116). Although the interaction between treatment and date was not statistically significant, we wanted to determine whether there were differences between the treatments at any of the weeks, especially during the week when aphid flight activity peaked. Statistically significant differences between treatments were found on 18 May. On that date, the highest mean aphid abundance in traps was recorded on the NS Rani otkos cultivar, with statistically significantly lower abundance observed on the Simonida cultivar (p = 0.035) and the NS 40S cultivar (p = 0.0105). In cultivar mixtures, a downward trend in aphid captures was observed compared to monocultures. The lowest values were recorded in the Simonida/NS Rani otkos and Simonida/NS 40S mixtures. The Simonida/NS Rani otkos mixture was statistically significantly different from its monocultures Simonida (p = 0.021) and NS Rani otkos (p ˂ 0.005), while the Simonida/NS 40S mixture was not statistically different from the monocultures. A statistically significant difference was found between the NS Rani otkos cultivar and its other mixture, NS 40S/NS Rani otkos (p = 0.020) (Figure 7).

4. Discussion

The results of our study suggest that the number of alate aphids, collected in yellow water traps, in cultivar mixtures is generally lower than in pure stands. However, not all mixtures have the same effect, and the influence of individual cultivars and their combinations varies between the autumn and spring portions of the season. Also, aphid fauna differs between the autumn and spring parts of the season.
During spring, significantly fewer aphids were collected in traps in certain cultivar mixtures than in monocultures of the cultivars comprising those mixtures. In the autumn, there was a clear trend of a lower number of aphids in mixtures compared to pure crops. Studies of aphid abundance on various cereal cultivars and their mixtures under field and laboratory conditions most often show a reduction in aphid abundance in mixtures compared to monocultures [23,31]. In plant mixtures, plant species interact with neighboring plants through their odors, which affects the plants themselves, and also indirectly influences phytophagous insects. Host plant location is hindered because, through volatile communication between cultivars, plants alter their volatile profiles, and aphids in the modified chemical environment no longer recognize the host plant [12,32]. Also, the visual signals emitted by plants, which aphids use to recognize potential hosts, are less available in a mixture [10]. Although cultivars may appear highly similar, they differ in color and morphological characteristics, and this mixture may disrupt aphid orientation and host selection. In our research, we investigated whether sowing mixtures of wheat varieties can influence aphids’ decisions to land in the field. Very few studies have involved collecting aphids in traps, i.e., before they land on plants. In the study by Xie et al. [33], alate individuals were collected using yellow sticky traps in wheat/mung bean intercropping, while in potato/onion intercropping, a reduced abundance of alate Myzus persicae collected in yellow water traps was reported [34]. Studies of aphids in wheat suggest that aphids can detect and respond to cultivar differences [35,36]. Certain studies have found no effect of cultivar [25], others show little significance [36], and some report a significant effect in attracting winged forms of aphids [26]. However, the effect of cultivar mixtures has not been examined.
During the autumn period, differences in alate aphid captures among various cultivars and their mixtures were observed in our research. Traps placed in the NS Rani otkos cultivar caught the fewest aphids. Additionally, mixtures of this cultivar with the other two cultivars showed lower aphid presence in traps compared to the Simonida and NS 40S monocultures. However, the attractiveness of the NS Rani otkos cultivar changed during the second half of the season. The number of aphids caught on this cultivar became comparable to that on Simonida, which remained consistently highly attractive, with large numbers of aphids captured in traps placed within it. The attractiveness of NS 40S in autumn was intermediate between these two cultivars, whereas in spring it was the least attractive. Analysis of total alate aphid captures showed that the Simonida/NS Rani otkos cultivar mixture was less attractive to aphids in spring than the monocultures of these two cultivars. The peak of aphid flight in Serbia occurs in mid-May [37], which coincides with the period when the highest number of captured individuals was recorded in this study. Most of the captured species were polyphagous aphids that do not feed on wheat; nevertheless, the effect of the cultivar mixture was evident through their reduced presence in the traps. It is interesting that the attractiveness of the cultivars changed in spring compared to autumn. In spring, the plants are more vigorous, being in the jointing and heading stages, and their volatile profile is likely to change accordingly. Moreover, unlike in autumn, the plants are in physical contact during spring, which can also affect their physiology and, consequently, their volatile profile [38]. In addition to the change in the attractiveness of individual cultivars, the least attractive cultivar reduced the attractiveness of the other two cultivars in the mixtures.
Similar total numbers of collected individuals were recorded in both autumn and spring. However, in autumn, most collected individuals belonged to species that feed on and overwinter on wheat, whereas in spring, polyphagous aphid species were more numerous. A significantly higher presence of aphid vector species collected in traps was observed during autumn compared to spring. Wheat is one of the plant species where the damage caused by aphids through feeding is less significant than the damage resulting from virus transmission [39,40]. For this reason, the results of our research, which indicate a decrease in the number of aphid vector specimens captured in certain treatments, are significant. Of the 854 individuals collected, 247 belonged to vector species. The most abundant vector species were M. persicae, R. padi and S. avenae. Rhopalosiphum padi and S. avenae are the most important vectors of wheat viruses [41,42], whereas Myzus persicae is also a known vector but is generally considered less efficient than R. padi and S. avenae [43]. Our research showed that the lowest number of captured vector individuals in autumn was found in the NS Rani otkos cultivar. Additionally, mixtures of NS Rani otkos with the other two cultivars showed a slight reduction in the number of captured vector individuals compared to pure crops. The epidemiological significance of vector species is considerably greater in autumn than in spring, as this period marks the primary phase of initial plant infection and virus transmission [44]. Therefore, any reduction in aphid presence has a significant impact on the number of aphids in the field and the potential for spreading viruses throughout the field. In autumn, alate aphids colonize host plants and introduce viruses into the crop. Subsequent population development, driven by their offspring, facilitates secondary spread within the field [45]. Therefore, aphid species that overwinter on wheat, such as S. avenae and R. padi, play a particularly critical role in the establishment and early dissemination of viral infections [46]. For both species, the flight peak occurs in autumn when aphids seek fields for overwintering [47]; thus, their high abundance in traps is not surprising.
Among the wheat virus vector species, S. avenae was the most numerous in the traps during spring, and the abundance of this species influenced differences in vector presence between treatments. Sitobion avenae is a monoecious species [2,48], meaning that individuals collected in traps during the spring likely originated from the experimental plots themselves. Therefore, the abundance of this species in the traps indirectly reflects the aphid situation in the studied fields; specifically, there are fewer aphids in certain plots with cultivar mixtures compared to monocultures. This suggests either lower production of alate individuals or reduced potential for intra-plot virus dispersal.
Chemical control of aphids does not provide sufficiently effective results and is not environmentally acceptable as a method of aphid suppression [49]. Later sowing, which avoids the autumn flight peak, is environmentally acceptable but may negatively affect yield [50]. Resistant cultivars are the most effective tool for reducing the negative impact of aphids, but there are very few examples of effective cultivar hybridization against some of the most important aphid species on wheat [51]. Our research confirms that mixing different cultivars is a viable approach for reducing aphid presence in crops, not only for apterous forms [52] but also for alates. With the proper selection of cultivars in a mixture, aphid presence can be significantly reduced.
Sowing a mixture of different wheat cultivars has limitations, most often due to the varying growing seasons of the cultivars. However, with the appropriate choice of cultivars, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks [53]. In addition to the positive effect on pests such as aphids, sowing a mixture of wheat cultivars usually has a positive effect on yield, improves soil nutrient utilization, reduces the negative effects of drought, and enhances resistance to disease [54].

5. Conclusions

The results of our research indicate that sowing a mixture of wheat cultivars can, to some extent, affect the number of alate aphids collected in traps. In most cases, the number of aphids in traps placed in mixtures is lower than in those placed in monocultures. Similarly, the number of vector species individuals captured in traps is often lower in mixtures than in monocultures. However, not every mixture produces the same result. In wheat, a plant species with two growing periods in one season—autumn and spring—the effect of mixtures can also vary, making the choice of varieties included in the mixture particularly important. Although our studies concern aphids collected in traps, they support the hypothesis that crop diversification can help reduce aphid abundance, which is relevant from both scientific and practical perspectives.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.N. and A.R.; methodology, A.R., O.P.-O. and I.L.; validation, A.R. and O.P.-O.; formal analysis, S.J.Š.; investigation, I.L. and A.R.; resources, A.R. and O.P.-O.; data curation, I.L. and A.R.; writing—original draft preparation, I.L.; writing—review and editing, I.L., S.J.Š., V.N., O.P.-O., J.B. and A.R.; visualization, A.R. and I.L.; supervision, A.R.; project administration, A.R.; funding acquisition, V.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. Funding was also provided by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation program as part of the project EcoStack (Grant Agreement no. 773554). This study was partly funded by the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation of the Republic of Serbia (Grants No. 451-03-34/2026-03/200116 and 451-03-33/2026-03/200010), and the Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia, the Serbian Science and Diaspora Collaboration Program (FUNDIVA, 6502416).

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the conclusions of this article will be available upon request from corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Dedryver, C.A.; Le Ralec, A.; Fabre, F. The conflicting relationships between aphids and men: A review of aphid damage and control strategies. Comptes Rendus Biol. 2010, 333, 539–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Favret, C.; Aphid Taxon Community (Eds.) Blackman & Eastop’s Aphids on the World’s Plants, Version 1.0. 2026. Available online: https://aphidsonworldsplants.info/ (accessed on 27 February 2026).
  3. Bockus, W.W.; Bowden, R.L.; Hunger, R.M.; Morrill, W.L.; Murray, T.D.; Smiley, R.W. Compendium of Wheat Diseases and Pests, 3rd ed.; The American Phytopathological Society: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lapierre, H.; Signoret, P.A. (Eds.) Viruses and Virus Diseases of Poaceae (Gramineae); INRA: Paris, France, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ordon, F.; Habekuss, A.; Kastirr, U.; Rabenstein, F.; Kühne, T. Virus resistance in cereals: Sources of resistance, genetics and breeding. J. Phytopathol. 2009, 157, 535–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Trębicki, P.; Nancarrow, N.; Cole, E.; Bosque-Pérez, N.A.; Constable, F.E.; Freeman, A.J.; Rodoni, B.; Yen, A.L.; Luck, J.E.; Fitzgerald, G.J. Virus disease in wheat predicted to increase with a changing climate. Glob. Change Biol. 2015, 21, 3511–3529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hu, X.S.; Liu, X.F.; Thieme, T.; Zhang, G.S.; Liu, T.X.; Zhao, H.Y. Testing the fecundity advantage hypothesis with Sitobion avenae, Rhopalosiphum padi and Schizaphis graminum feeding on ten wheat accessions. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 18549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Borg, A.N.; Vuts, J.; Caulfield, J.C.; Birkett, M.A. Metabolite-based resistance in wheat varieties to aphid virus vectors: Progress and future opportunities. Pest Manag. Sci. 2025, 81, 7276–7287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Powell, G.; Tosh, C.R.; Hardie, J. Host plant selection by aphids: Behavioural, evolutionary, and applied perspectives. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2006, 51, 309–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Döring, T.F.; Chittka, L. Visual ecology of aphids—A critical review on the role of colours in host finding. Arthropod-Plant Interact. 2007, 1, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pickett, J.A.; Wadhams, L.J.; Woodcock, C.M.; Hardie, J. The chemical ecology of aphids. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1992, 37, 67–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Webster, B. The role of olfaction in aphid host location. Physiol. Entomol. 2012, 37, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Callaway, R.M.; Walker, L.R. Competition and facilitation: A synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology 1997, 78, 1958–1965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ninkovic, V.; Marković, D.; Dahlin, I. Decoding neighbour volatiles in preparation for future competition and implications for tritrophic interactions. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2016, 23, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ninković, V.; Olsson, U.; Pettersson, J. Mixing barley cultivars affects aphid host plant acceptance in field experiments. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2002, 102, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bruce, T.J.A.; Wadhams, L.J.; Woodcock, C.M. Insect host location: A volatile situation. Trends Plant Sci. 2005, 10, 269–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Liu, J.; Yan, Y.; Ali, A.; Wang, N.; Zhao, Z.; Yu, M. Effects of wheat-maize intercropping on population dynamics of wheat aphids and their natural enemies. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Markovic, D.; Seimandi-Corda, G.; Harizanova, V.; Stoeva, A.; Himanen, S.; Saussure, S.; Radonjic, A.; Đuric, G.; Lalićević, I.; Kheam, S.; et al. Volatile-mediated plant interactions: An innovative approach to cultivar mixture selection for enhanced pest resilience. Front. Plant Sci. 2025, 16, 1550678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sarker, P.K.; Rahman, M.M.; Das, B.C. Effect of intercropping with mustard with onion and garlic on aphid population and yield. J. Bio-Sci. 2007, 15, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tooker, J.F.; Frank, S.D. Genotypically diverse cultivar mixtures for insect pest management and increased crop yields. J. Appl. Ecol. 2012, 49, 974–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Koricheva, J.; Hayes, D. The relative importance of plant intraspecific diversity in structuring arthropod communities: A metaanalysis. Funct. Ecol. 2018, 32, 1704–1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wan, N.-F.; Zheng, X.-R.; Fu, L.-W.; Kiær, L.P.; Zhang, Z.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Dainese, M.; Tan, J.; Qiu, S.-Y.; Hu, Y.-Q.; et al. Global synthesis of effects of plant species diversity on trophic groups and interactions. Nat. Plants 2020, 6, 503–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Duan, X.; Pan, S.; Fan, M.; Chu, B.; Ma, Z.; Gao, F.; Zhao, Z. Cultivar mixture enhances crop yield by decreasing aphids. Agronomy 2022, 12, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Parry, H.R. Cereal aphid movement: General principles and simulation modelling. Mov. Ecol. 2013, 1, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Qureshi, J.A.; Jyoti, J.L.; Michaud, J.P. Differential colonization of wheat cultivars by two biotypes of Russian wheat aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae). Insect Sci. 2005, 12, 341–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Simon, A.L.; Caulfield, J.C.; Hammond-Kosack, K.E.; Field, L.M.; Aradóttir, G.I. Identifying aphid resistance in the ancestral wheat Triticum monococcum under field conditions. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 13495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Taylor, L.R. A Handbook for Aphid Identification; Rothamsted Experimental Station: Harpenden, UK, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  28. Jacky, F.; Bouchery, Y. Atlas des Formes Ailées des Espèces Courantes de Pucerons; INRA: Paris, France, 1988; 48p. [Google Scholar]
  29. Remaudière, G.; Seco Fernandez, M.V. Claves para Ayudar al Reconocimiento de Alados de Pulgones Atrapados en la Región Mediterránea (Hom. Aphidoidea); Universidad de León: León, Spain, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  30. StatSoft, Inc. STATISTICA, Version 10; StatSoft, Inc.: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2011.
  31. Tous-Fandos, A.; Gallinger, J.; Enting, A.; Chamorro-Lorenzo, L.; Sans Serra, F.X.; Ninkovic, V. Alterations in the odor profile of plants in cultivar mixtures affect aphid host-location behavior. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1186425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Kheam, S.; Markovic, D.; Rubene, D.; Ith, S.; Ninkovic, V. Volatile interactions between specific undamaged barley cultivars affect aphid feeding behavior and performance. J. Pest Sci. 2023, 96, 1049–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Xie, H.-C.; Chen, J.-L.; Cheng, D.-F.; Zhou, H.-B.; Sun, J.-R.; Liu, Y.; Francis, F. Impact of wheat–mung bean intercropping on English grain aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) populations and its natural enemy. J. Econ. Entomol. 2012, 105, 854–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ninkovic, V.; Dahlin, I.; Vučetić, A.; Petrović-Obradović, O.; Glinwood, R. Volatile exchange between undamaged plants—A new mechanism affecting insect orientation in intercropping. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e69431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Klueken, A.M.; Poehling, H.M.; Hau, B. Attractiveness and host suitability of winter wheat cultivars for cereal aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae). J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2008, 115, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Schröder, M.L.; Glinwood, R.; Ignell, R.; Krüger, K. Landing preference and reproduction of Rhopalosiphum padi (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in the laboratory on three maize, potato, and wheat cultivars. J. Insect Sci. 2015, 15, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Vučetić, A.; Vukov, T.; Jovičić, I.; Petrović-Obradović, O. Monitoring of aphid flight activities in seed potato crops in Serbia. ZooKeys 2013, 319, 333–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Markovic, D.; Colzi, I.; Taiti, C.; Ray, S.; Scalone, R.; Ali, J.G.; Mancuso, S.; Ninkovic, V. Airborne signals synchronize the defenses of neighboring plants in response to touch. J. Exp. Bot. 2019, 70, 691–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. McKirdy, S.J.; Jones, R.A.C.; Nutter, F.W., Jr. Quantification of yield losses caused by Barley yellow dwarf virus in wheat and oats. Plant Dis. 2002, 86, 769–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nancarrow, N.; Aftab, M.; Hollaway, G.; Rodoni, B.; Trębicki, P. Yield losses caused by Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus-PAV infection in wheat and barley: A three-year field study in South-Eastern Australia. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Aradottir, G.I.; Crespo-Herrera, L. Host plant resistance in wheat to barley yellow dwarf viruses and their aphid vectors: A review. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2021, 45, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Leybourne, D.J. How does vector diversity influence the transmission efficiency of yellow dwarf virus? Perspectives from a review. Plant Pathol. 2024, 73, 1042–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mc Namara, L.M.; Lacey, S.; Kildea, S.; Schughart, M.; Walsh, L.; Doyle, D.; Gaffney, M.T. Barley yellow dwarf virus in winter barley: Control in light of resistance issues and loss of neonicotinoid insecticides. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2025, 186, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kennedy, T.F.; Connery, J. Control of barley yellow dwarf virus in minimum-till and conventional-till autumn-sown cereals by insecticide seed and foliar spray treatments. J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 150, 249–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Fabre, F.; Dedryver, C.A.; Leterrier, J.-L.; Plantegenest, M. Aphid abundance on cereals in autumn predicts yield losses caused by barley yellow dwarf virus. Phytopathology 2003, 93, 1217–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Kennedy, T.F.; McDonald, J.G.; Connery, J.; Purvis, G. A comparison of the occurrence of aphids and barley yellow dwarf virus in minimum-till and conventional-till autumn-sown cereals. J. Agric. Sci. 2010, 148, 407–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tomanović, Ž.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Stary, P.; Petrović-Obradović, O.; Athanassiou, C.G.; Stanisavljević, L. Cereal aphids (Hemiptera: Aphidoidea) in Serbia: Seasonal dynamics and natural enemies. Eur. J. Entomol. 2008, 105, 495–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hand, S.C.; Wratten, S.D. Production of sexual morphs by the monoecious cereal aphid Sitobion avenae. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1985, 38, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mc Namara, L.M.; Gauthier, K.; Walsh, L.; Thébaud, G.; Gaffney, M.; Jacquot, E. Management of yellow dwarf disease in Europe in a post-neonicotinoid agriculture. Pest Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 2276–2285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jarecki, W. Response of winter wheat to delayed sowing and varied nitrogen fertilization. Agriculture 2024, 14, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shah, F.; Coulter, J.A.; Ye, C.; Wu, W. Yield penalty due to delayed sowing of winter wheat and the mitigatory role of increased seeding rate. Eur. J. Agron. 2020, 119, 126120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Shoffner, A.V.; Tooker, J.F. The potential of genotypically diverse cultivar mixtures to moderate aphid populations in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Arthropod-Plant Interact. 2013, 7, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Fletcher, A.L.; Ogden, G.; Sharma, D. Mixing it up—Wheat cultivar mixtures can increase yield and buffer the risk of flowering too early or too late. Eur. J. Agron. 2019, 103, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Vestergaard, N.F.; Jørgensen, L.N. Variety mixtures of winter wheat: A general status and national case study. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2024, 131, 1127–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 16 01256 g001
Figure 1. (a) Treatment schedule in the trial: A—Simonida; B—NS Rani otkos; C—NS 40S; D—Simonida/NS Rani otkos; E—Simonida/NS 40S; and F—NS Rani otkos/NS 40S. (b) YWT in the field, in autumn (left) and in spring (right).
Figure 1. (a) Treatment schedule in the trial: A—Simonida; B—NS Rani otkos; C—NS 40S; D—Simonida/NS Rani otkos; E—Simonida/NS 40S; and F—NS Rani otkos/NS 40S. (b) YWT in the field, in autumn (left) and in spring (right).
Agriculture 16 01256 g001
Agriculture 16 01256 g002
Figure 2. Mean number of captured aphid alates per treatment during autumn 2020. Error bars represent standard deviation (SD).
Figure 2. Mean number of captured aphid alates per treatment during autumn 2020. Error bars represent standard deviation (SD).
Agriculture 16 01256 g002
Agriculture 16 01256 g003
Figure 3. Mean abundance of aphids in spring in relation to cultivars and mixtures. Error bars represent standard deviation (SD); different letters represent statistical differences between treatments according to Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05). Bars show raw means ± SD while letters are based on transformed data.
Figure 3. Mean abundance of aphids in spring in relation to cultivars and mixtures. Error bars represent standard deviation (SD); different letters represent statistical differences between treatments according to Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05). Bars show raw means ± SD while letters are based on transformed data.
Agriculture 16 01256 g003
Agriculture 16 01256 g004
Figure 4. Total number of captured aphid alates per treatment during spring. Error bars represent standard deviation (SD); different letters represent statistical differences between treatments per week according to Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05). Bars show raw data for number of captured aphids ± SD, while letters are based on transformed data.
Figure 4. Total number of captured aphid alates per treatment during spring. Error bars represent standard deviation (SD); different letters represent statistical differences between treatments per week according to Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05). Bars show raw data for number of captured aphids ± SD, while letters are based on transformed data.
Agriculture 16 01256 g004
Agriculture 16 01256 g005
Figure 5. Total abundance of aphid vector species individuals per treatment during the autumn/winter period. Error bars represent standard deviation (SD).
Figure 5. Total abundance of aphid vector species individuals per treatment during the autumn/winter period. Error bars represent standard deviation (SD).
Agriculture 16 01256 g005
Agriculture 16 01256 g006
Figure 6. Mean abundance of aphid vector species individuals per treatment during the spring/summer period. Error bars represent standard deviation (SD); different letters represent statistical differences between treatments according to Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05). Bars show raw means ± SD while letters are based on transformed data.
Figure 6. Mean abundance of aphid vector species individuals per treatment during the spring/summer period. Error bars represent standard deviation (SD); different letters represent statistical differences between treatments according to Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05). Bars show raw means ± SD while letters are based on transformed data.
Agriculture 16 01256 g006
Agriculture 16 01256 g007
Figure 7. Mean abundance of vector species individuals per treatment during the spring/summer period over 4 weeks. Error bars represent standard deviation (SD); different letters represent statistical differences between treatments per week according to Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05). Bars show raw means ± SD while letters are based on transformed data.
Figure 7. Mean abundance of vector species individuals per treatment during the spring/summer period over 4 weeks. Error bars represent standard deviation (SD); different letters represent statistical differences between treatments per week according to Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05). Bars show raw means ± SD while letters are based on transformed data.
Agriculture 16 01256 g007
Table 1. Taxa of aphid alates captured in traps in wheat during autumn and spring.
Table 1. Taxa of aphid alates captured in traps in wheat during autumn and spring.
Aphid TaxaNo. AutumnNo. SpringAphid TaxaNo. AutumnNo. Spring
Acyrthosiphon pisum044Metopolophium dirhodum31
Anoecia spp.60Myzus cerasi01
Aphis craccivora2244Myzus persicae11331
Aphis fabae742Myzus sp.10
Aphis gossypii4129Phyllaphis fagi40
Aphis sambuci013Phorodon humuli10
Aphis spp.5366Panaphis juglandis10
Aphis spiraecola160Pemphigus spp.130
Aphis spiraecola/pomi019Rhopalosiphum maidis150
Aulacorthum solani113Rhopalosiphum padi357
Brachycaudus cardui95Rhopalomyzus poae30
Brachycaudus helichrysi86Schizaphis graminum10
Brachycaudus spp.20Lipaphis erysimi10
Cavariella aegopodii01Macrosiphum euphorbiae01
Cavariella sp.10Sitobion avenae4316
Cinara costata20Tetraneura sp.10
Dysaphis plantaginea30Therioaphis trifolii01
Dysaphis spp.40Uroleucon spp.02
Eriosoma spp.90Wahlgreniella ossiannilsson10
Hyadaphis spp.20Myzocallidinae 10
Hyperomyzus lactucae34Aphididae478
Sum430424
Table 2. Proportion of individual virus vector species caught in traps in wheat during autumn and spring.
Table 2. Proportion of individual virus vector species caught in traps in wheat during autumn and spring.
Virus Vectors Autumn Spring Proportion of
Species
Metopolophium dirhodum311.60%
Myzus persicae1133157.60%
Rhopalosiphum maidis1506.00%
Rhopalosiphum padi35714.80%
Rhopalomyzus poae301.20%
Schizaphis graminum100.40%
Sitobion avenae431618.40%
Total19255100%
247
Table 3. Captured individuals of vector species in autumn in various cultivars and mixtures.
Table 3. Captured individuals of vector species in autumn in various cultivars and mixtures.
All Vector Species
CultivarNumber of IndividualsPercentage Abundance
Simonida5327.60%
NS 40S3116.15%
NS Rani otkos84.17%
Simonida/NS 40S4020.83%
Simonida/NS Rani otkos3819.79%
NS 40S/NS Rani otkos2211.46%
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

Lalićević, I.; Janković Šoja, S.; Bačić, J.; Ninkovic, V.; Petrović-Obradović, O.; Radonjić, A. Cultivar-Dependent Associational Effects in Wheat Cultivar Mixtures Influence Alate Aphid Captures and the Presence of Virus Vectors. Agriculture 2026, 16, 1256. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16121256

AMA Style

Lalićević I, Janković Šoja S, Bačić J, Ninkovic V, Petrović-Obradović O, Radonjić A. Cultivar-Dependent Associational Effects in Wheat Cultivar Mixtures Influence Alate Aphid Captures and the Presence of Virus Vectors. Agriculture. 2026; 16(12):1256. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16121256

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lalićević, Ivana, Svjetlana Janković Šoja, Jasmina Bačić, Velemir Ninkovic, Olivera Petrović-Obradović, and Andja Radonjić. 2026. "Cultivar-Dependent Associational Effects in Wheat Cultivar Mixtures Influence Alate Aphid Captures and the Presence of Virus Vectors" Agriculture 16, no. 12: 1256. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16121256

APA Style

Lalićević, I., Janković Šoja, S., Bačić, J., Ninkovic, V., Petrović-Obradović, O., & Radonjić, A. (2026). Cultivar-Dependent Associational Effects in Wheat Cultivar Mixtures Influence Alate Aphid Captures and the Presence of Virus Vectors. Agriculture, 16(12), 1256. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16121256

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

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop