Plant Resistance as a Part of Integrated Pest Management for Whiteflies on Floral Crops 1992 Proposal
on Floral Crops
A. SUMMARY:
The development of integrated pest management (IPM) programs is crucial
for the future of insect and mite pest control on floral crops, especially
in light of the current and impending regulations and costs (monetary and
environmental) of pesticide use. This proposal requests the second year
of funding for a three year project that investigates plant resistance
as part of IPM for whiteflies on floral crops. This project proposes to
examine a fundamental component of any IPM program: the interaction between
the crop cultivar, the pest(s), and the control strategies. As part of
the overall effort to develop pest management strategies for floral crops,
this project will expand the work on plant resistance to whiteflies by
investigating the biology of both sweetpotato (Bemisia tabaci) and greenhouse
(Trialeurodes vapor) whiteflies on a broader range of floral crops, examine
the influence of crop fertilization practices on plant susceptibility to
whiteflies, examine the interaction of chemical control and plant resistance,
and the interaction of biological control with plant resistance.
A knowledge of the degree of cultivar susceptibility/resistance and
the biology of a pest on a crop are fundamental components of an integrated
pest management program for any crop. Such information can aid in detecting
and monitoring pest infestations, cultivar selection, and crop breeding.
Also, although it is known that the kind and amount of nutrients that an
insect ingests directly affects its survival and reproduction, and that
plant-feeding insects are dependent on the quantity and quality of nutrients
in their host plant, it is currently unknown whether plant susceptibility
to pests can be reduced by modifying the way a floral crop is fertilized,
without sacrificing crop quality. Promising research on biological control
of greenhouse pests is underway on several floral crops. However, to fully
exploit biological control, and ascertain whether certain plant characteristics
are likely to influence the effectiveness of natural enemies, the interaction
between plant characteristics and natural enemies should be understood.
Research on greenhouse vegetable crops has shown that biological control
may be more successful on some cultivars than on others because of differences
in physical and/or chemical aspects of a plant. Chemical control of pests
will remain a fundamental component of integrated pest management, particularly
with “biorational” insecticides. However, chemical control may be better
on some cultivars, than on others, once again because of the interaction
between characteristics of the crop cultivar, the pest, and the pesticide.
This project is designed to investigate these issues.
Benefits to the floral industry: Whiteflies are one of the most serious
pests of floral crops world-wide. This research will aid in whitefly control
with less insecticide on a wider range of floral crops. Less use of chemical
pesticides reduces the economic, regulatory, environmental, and social
costs of chemical pest control, and reduces pesticide resistance problems.
The information generated may be useful in breeding for resistance to pests
in floral crops, or for introducing plant resistance into new cultivars
through biotechnology. In addition to improved whitefly control, results
of this research may be directly or indirectly applicable to the control
of other pests of floral crops. For example, cultivars; that are resistant
to one pest species are often resistant to others as well. Insights will
be gained in the integration of cultural, biological, and chemical pest
control, which are the components of a complete IPM program.
B. DETAILED PROPOSAL
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION. (Note: Because the thrust
of this project has not changed, the background information that follows
is not substantially different from the previously-funded proposal submitted
in 1990 and is provided for those who are unfamiliar with this project.
Updated information has been provided whenever appropriate and available.)
The development of effective IPM programs requires a thorough knowledge
of the interactions between the crop, the pest(s), and the control strategies.
Some pests may be more severe on some crops or cultivars than on others,
and the degree of control achieved by a given strategy can be influenced
by the crop or cultivar. Thus, of central importance to an IPM program
is a knowledge of the degree of susceptibility/resistance of crop cultivars,
as well as how the effectiveness of control strategies can be influenced
by crop cultivar. Identifying and exploiting the degree of resistance/susceptibility
of crop cultivars for pest control falls under the reahn of host plant
resistance studies. Host plant resistance can be described as any reduction
in population growth of a target pest, as influenced by heritable characteristics
of the host plant, compared to a standard variety (De Ponti et al. 1990).
On floral crops, two categories of plant resistance can be important
for insect and mite pest control; these are antixenosis (or non-preference)
where the pest is not attracted to a plant because of the presence or lack
of chemical and/or physical cues, and antibiosis, where a plant possesses
chemical and/or physical characteristics which adversely affect the pest.
Host plant resistance against floricultural pests can be exploited in several
ways. Initial screening for plant resistance can quickly identify the relative
degree of resistance/susceptibility of each cultivar tested. A simple knowledge
of the degree of susceptibility of different cultivars can aid in detecting
and monitoring pest populations. For example, cultivars on which the pests
are particularly severe could be placed together in a greenhouse operation
and monitored for pests more carefully than the more resistant cultivars.
Time involved in monitoring for pests could be reduced in this way, and
early detection of pest problems would be easier.
This preliminary screening for whitefly resistance may also provide
a preliminary indication of resistance to other pests. For example, during
my previous project funded by the American Floral Endowment, we observed
that poinsettia cultivars that were the most susceptible to greenhouse
whiteflies were also the most susceptible to spider mites and mealybugs.
The same may also be true for other floral crops. It may also be possible
to breed for plant resistance through traditional breeding programs, once
resistant cultivars are identified. If the mechanism(s) that confer resistance
to a pest(s) is identified, it may eventually be possible to introduce
plant factors which confer resistance into susceptible cultivars by means
of tissue culture or biotechnological procedures. Because floricultural
crops are not food crops, the production of chemicals which are toxic to
humans by the plants is not of great concern, yet could be exploited for
pest control.
Despite the potential benefits of studies on whitefly resistance on
floral crops, little work is currently underway. The degree of resistance/susceptibility
of a cultivar may also be influenced by horticultural practices. Plant-feeding
insects and mites are obviously dependent on their host plant for their
nutritional requirements. Thus, the way that a crop is grown might influence
its level of resistance. Preliminary observations of whiteflies on poinsettia
from my previous American Floral Endowment project indicate that fertilization
practices might influence whitefly development on this crop. By modifying
fertilizer inputs it may be possible to change the degree of plant susceptibility
to whiteflies, or adversely affect the whiteflies. It is also possible
that these fertilizer modifications would affect other pests in addition
to whiteflies. However, except for one study (Hasernan 1946), the effect
of plant nutrition on whiteflies has not been studied on a floral crop.
The possibility of modifying horticultural practices for improved pest
control should be examined as a cultural control component of an IPM program.
As mentioned previously, the degree of control achieved by a given strategy
can be influenced by the crop or cultivar, and this should be examined
as part of an effective IPM program. Some studies have shown that better
chemical control of floricultural pests can be achieved on resistant cultivars
than on susceptible ones (Selander et al. 1972, Alverson & Gorsuch
1982). In our previous Endowment project we found that whitefly nymphal
control can be significantly affected by an interaction between insecticide
and poinsettia cultivar. That is, sweetpotato whitefly nymphal control
with horticultural oil was better on ‘TopWhite’ than on ‘Mini Minniken’
(probably due to differences in spray coverage caused by canopy architecture),
although the degree of control by both fluvalinate (Mavrik) and a mixture
of fenpropathrin plus acephate (Tame plus Orthene) was not affected by
cultivar. Other studies have shown the benefit of integrating the use of
resistant crop cultivars with biological control organisms in an integrated
pest management program (van Emden 1966, Starks et al. 1972, Obrycki et
al. 1983, Li Zhoa Hua et al. 1987). Biological control of whiteflies with
parasitic wasps is a particularly promising control strategy on certain
crops.
Several floricultural entomologists are actively pursuing the commercial
development of this strategy (Lindquist 1988, Parrella et al. 1991, Heinz
& Parrella 1990), including our efforts at Cornell (Sanderson &
Ferrentino 1990, Zchori-Fein et al. 1991). The effectiveness of parasitoids
against whiteflies on selected crop cultivars should be investigated to
determine if certain plant characteristics have a positive or negative
influences on the parasitoid’s effectiveness. For example, it is conceivable
that biological control is enhanced on those cultivars which cause a reduction
in immature whitefly developmental rate, because immature whiteflies remain
for a longer time in life stages that are susceptible to the parasitoid’s
attack. Alternatively, certain cultivars may have undesirable characteristics,
such as excessively hairy leaves, that impede the searching ability of
the parasitoid, and thus interfere with biological control (Hulspas-Jordaan
and van Lenteren 1978). As part of a complete integrated pest management
program for whitefly control on poinsettia, wherein plant resistance, biological
control, and/or chemical control are integrated, the influence of cultivar
on parasitoid effectiveness should be investigated. For example, in our
1990 studies of whitefly control by Encarsia formosa among seven popular
red poinsettia cultivars, we found that whitefly numbers were affected
by both the parasitoids and the cultivars, and there was some indication
that the parasitoids were more effective on some cultivars than on others.
In summary, the results of this project will provide information that may
be valuable for optimal whitefly chemical control, biological control,
and cultural control (i.e., crop nutrient modifications, cultivar selection),
and thus be adaptable to IPM programs in a wide range of greenhouse operations.
2. REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT LITERATURE.
(Note: This review has been updated to include any pertinent studies
that have recently appeared in the literature since the 1990 proposal,
plus some of our research results.) Many studies have documented differing
levels of susceptibility to a given pest among varieties of a given floricultural
crop, and/or the effect that the variety of crop may have on the biology
of the pest (e.g., Craig et al. 1986, Al-Abassi et al. 1987, Alverson &
Gorsuch 1982, Fraenkel et al. 1960, Parrella et al. 1983, Parrella &
Bethke 1984, Poe & Green 1974, Selander et al. 1972, Schuster &
Harbaugh 1979, Webb & Smith 1969, Hussey & Parr 1965, Markkula
& Tiitanen 1969, Parr & Thurston 1968, Singh 1984, Broadbent &
Blom 1984, Hargreaves & Cooper 1980). However, the heritability or
mechanism of resistance has rarely been carefully examined (notable exceptions:
Al-Abassi et al. 1987, Craig et al. 1986). Most work on plant resistance
in floricultural crops has involved spider mites, leafminers, and aphids
(e.g., all of the above except Parr & Thurston 1968, Fraenkel et al.
1960, Singh 1984, and Hargreaves & Cooper 1980). Only limited research
on plant resistance to the greenhouse whitefly in floricultural crops has
been done (De Pond et al. 1990), although this is one of the industry’s
major pests, and potential in this area exists, considering the plant resistance
work that has been done with whiteflies on tomato and cucumber (De Pond
& Steehuis 1984, De Ponti et al. 1983, Berlinger et al. 1983, Van der
Kamp & Van Lenteren 1981, Kowalewski & Robinson 1977).
Fischer & Shanks (1974) evaluated the degree of greenhouse whitefly
infestation on 68 poinsettia cultivars. They found a wide variation in
whitefly infestations among these cultivars, and concluded in part that
whiteflies preferred to lay eggs on cultivars with lighter colored bracts.
Bilderback and Mattson (1977a) reported more whiteflies on Annette Hegg
cultivars (white, pink, and red) than on Eckespoint C- 1 or Rochford cultivars,
although their results were not analyzed for statistical significance.
Bract coloration apparently had little or no effect on whitefly abundance
in their study. Bilderback and Mattson (1977b) found significantly more
whitefly nymphs on Hot Pink Annette Hegg and White Annette Hegg cultivars
than on Dark Red Annette Hegg or the Eckespoint C-1 and Rochford cultivars.
Rochford (red) had significantly fewer nymphs than any cultivar tested.
They concluded that leaf color and leaf trichome characteristics appear
to influence whitefly preference for poinsettia cultivars, although their
conclusions are based only on correlations between whitefly numbers and
selected characteristics of certain poinsettia cultivars, rather than on
direct experimental evidence. Other than our project at Cornell, no work
has been done on plant resistance to sweetpotato whitefly on floral crops.
Most of the work with sweetpotato wbitefly has been done on cotton and
tomato. Sweetpotato whitefly infestations are generally higher on hairy
varieties of cotton than on glabrous ones (Sippell et al. 1983, Butler
& Henneberry 1984). Sap pH, leaf size and morphology, leaf hair density,
glandular leaf hairs, and canopy structure have also been reported to influence
sweetpotato whitefly abundance (Kisha 1981, 1984, Sippell et al. 1983,
Berlinger 1986).
In our studies at Cornell we found that sweetpotato whitefly abundance
differed significantly among the poinsettia cultivars tested thus far.
Sweetpotato whiteflies were most abundant on C- 1 varieties, including
‘Celebrate’, in both choice and no-choice tests, although reproduction
was substantial on all cultivars, including a wild cultivar. Sweetpotato
whiteflies also laid significantly more eggs on ‘Mini Minniken’ than on
‘Lilo’ in both choice and no-choice tests. It is well known that horticultural
practices that influence the levels and availability of plant nutrients
can influence the abundance of insects and mites. For example, spider mites
develop faster on water-stressed almonds (Youngman et al. 1988, Oi et al.
1989). Fertilizers can affect the nitrogen content of plants and thus their
suitability to whiteflies (Onillon et al. 1986). Joyce (1958) reported
that an increased concentration of leaf tissue nitrogen correlated to an
increase in sweetpotato whitefly populations on cotton. Hasernan (1946)
reported that magnesium and potassium deficiencies positively affected
greenhouse whitefly populations on petunias. By manipulating plant nutrient
levels it may be possible to adversely affect pest levels on susceptible
cultivars. An initial study at Cornell on the effect of nitrate source
(calcium nitrate vs. ammonium nitrate) among seven poinsettia cultivars
on whiteflies did not reveal significant differences in sweetpotato whitefly
developmental time, but these results cannot be relied upon because two-thirds
of the whitefly nymphs were unexpectedly killed prematurely by a parasite
infestation. The study is being repeated, with proper precautions against
parasitism.
3. OBJECTIVES OF PROPOSED RESEARCH.
a. Screen cultivars of several important floral crops for resistance
to whiteflies.
b. Investigate the degree to which crop fertilizing practices affect
whitefly biology (and perhaps that of other pests), and determine if pest
problems can be reduced by modifying crop fertilizer programs without sacrificing
crop quality.
c. Compare the efficacy of insecticides against whiteflies on resistant
and susceptible cultivars.
d. Compare the effectiveness of whitefly parasitoids on selected crop
cultivars.
4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Objective a. Over the three year duration of this project, we will expand
our previous work on screening for whitefly resistance on poinsettias to
include cultivars of several other important floral crops. Possible crops
of interest include gerbera, geranium, lantana, fuchsia, salvia, petunia,
or others. Important and promising cultivars to screen will be determined
by consultation with breeders and other knowledgeable industry and academic
personnel. These resistance screening studies have been initiated and will
continue for the duration of the project. Colonies of greenhouse and sweetpotato
whiteflies that originated from commercial greenhouses are established
at Cornell and will be used in the work. Our standard screening procedure
has been to evaluate whitefly infestation levels in “choice” tests (where
whitefly adults can “choose” between cultivars) and “no-choice” tests (where
whitefly adults are confined to a given cultivar). In “no-choice” tests,
adult whiteflies are caged on various cultivars for 48 hours. After the
adults are removed, observations on the number, overall survival, and egg
to adult development time of resulting offspring are made. In “choice”
tests, adult whiteflies are released uniformly among replicated blocks
containing one plant of each cultivar, after which the number of resulting
nymphs per plant is determined.
The results of these screening studies may yield information about possible
mechanisms of whitefly resistance, such as certain characteristics of leaf
morphology or plant chemistry. Based on our observations, hypotheses about
mechanisms of resistance will be developed and tested experimentally in
an attempt to identify any resistance mechanism(s). These experiments may
involve studies such as detailed observations of whitefly behavior, characterization
and modifications of plant architecture/morphology, analysis of leaf tissue
or sap content, and/or other experimental procedures.
Objective b. Because of the results of our previous work with both sweetpotato
and greenhouse whiteflies on poinsettia, and the importance of the poinsettia
crop in the industry, we are using this crop in these nutrient studies.
We have begun several experiments to determine the effect of plant nitrogen
content on whitefly populations. These studies are currently underway.
We will look at the two common forms of nitrogen in fertilizers: calcium
nitrate and ammonium nitrate. Ammonium fertilizers make a plant darker
and more succulent than nitrate fertilizers, and it is possible that these
changes also affect whiteflies. Several poinsettia cultivars; will be grown
with these two different forms of nitrogen, providing them with the same
total amount of nitrogen in solution, and test to see if there is an effect
on the biology of B. tabaci.
We will evaluate differences by choice and no-choice tests as described
above. Leaf tissue samples will be analyzed for nutrient content at regular
intervals during the study. Also, the effect of the amount of nitrogen
provided to poinsettias on whitefly biology will also be evaluated. If
a correlation exists between the density of B. tabaci and the concentration
of leaf nitrogen in poinsettias as Joyce (1958) found in cotton, then we
may find a difference in population levels between plants fertilized with
different amounts of nitrogen, similar to the findings of Onillon et al.
(1986). In a best case scenario, we hope to be able to manipulate the nitrogen
level of a susceptible cultivar to increase its resistance to whitefly
infestation. Cultivars that differ in their rate of nutrient utilization
and whitefly susceptibility will be grown at low, normal, and high nitrogen
regimes for several weeks, and conduct choice and no-choice studies with
sweetpotato whiteflies. Leaf tissue samples will be analyzed for nutrient
content at regular intervals, and the results will be examined for correlation
with whitefly abundance and biology. Observations on crop growth characteristics
and quality will be made.
Objective c. Standard insecticide efficacy studies are currently being
done during the first phase of the project to identify candidate insecticides
to use in future tests, while cultivars are being screened for resistance.
Thereafter, standard insecticide efficacy studies will be conducted on
resistant and susceptible cultivars. Several insecticides will be applied
to the plants under whitefly pressure in the greenhouse, and compared with
unsprayed plants of the same varieties. A factorial experimental design
will be used to determine the individual controlling effect of each insecticide,
and each variety, as well as the possible interaction between plant resistance
and control with insecticides.
Objective d. We will conduct laboratory and small-scale greenhouse tests
to investigate the relative effectiveness of the commercially-available
parasitoid E. formosa on various crop cultivars. Research elsewhere may
identify more promising parasitoid species for sweetpotato whitefly control,
and if so, we will cooperate to examine the relative effectiveness of these
new parasitoid(s) on various cultivars of interest. Several cultivars will
be chosen, including some that vary in characteristics (such as leaf hair
density) that are most likely to influence parasitoid performance. Parasitoids
will be released onto plants that have been grown under standardized conditions
and infested with uniform numbers of whiteflies. Observations on parasitoid
searching efficiency, rate of parasitism, and degree of control will be
made and compared among cultivars. As mentioned previously, studies on
the effect of poinsettia cultivar on whitefly control with E. formosa have
begun, with work on other crops to follow.
5. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE The necessary equipment and facilities
to accomplish this work are available at Cornell University. No funds for
major equipment or facilities are requested.
6. LITERATURE CITED
Al-Abbasi, S. H., J. L. Weigle & E. R. Hart. 1987. Biological interactions
between New Guinea Impatiens and the twospotted spider mite (Acari: Tetranychidae):
J. Econ. Entomol. 80: 47-50.
Alverson, D. R. & C. S. Gorsuch. 1982. Evaluation of chrysanthemum
cultivars and insecticides for control of damage by a leafminer, Liriomyza
trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 75: 888- 891.
Berlinger, M. J. 1986. Host-plant resistance to Bemisia tabaci. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 17:69-82.
Berlinger, M. J., R. Dahan & E. Shevach-Urkin. 1983. Breeding for
resistance to whiteflies in tomatoes - in relation to integrated pest control
in greenhouses. Bulletin SROP 6: 172-176.
Bilderback, T., & R. Mattson. 1977a. Whitefly preference for Annette
Hegg, Eckespoint C-1 and Rochford poinsettia cultivars drenched with ancymidol.
Florist’s Review (January 1977): 38, 79, 80.
Bilderback, T.E., & R.H. Mattson. 1977b. Whitefly host preference
associated with selected biochemical and phenotypic characteristics of
poinsettias. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 102: 327-331.
Broadbent, A. B. & T. J. Blom. 1984. Comparative susceptibility
of chrysanthemum cultivars to Liriomyza trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae).
Proc. Entomol. Soc. Ont. 114: 91-93. Butler, G.D., Or.], & T.J. Henneberry.
1984. Bemisia tabaci: Effect of cotton leaf pubescence on abundance. Southwestern
Entomologist 9: 91-94.
Craig, R., R. O. Mumma, D. L. Gerhold B. L. Winner & R. Snetsinger.
1986. Genetic control of a biochemical mechanism for mite resistance in
geraniums. In: Natural resistance of plants to pests. M. B. Green &
P. A. Hedin [eds.j. Am. Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. No. 296. 243 pp.
De Ponti, O.M.B., L.R. Romanow and M.J. Berlinger. 1990. Whitefly-plant
relationships: plant resistance, pp. 91-106. In: Whiteflies: their Bionomics,
Pest Status and Management. D. Gerling [ed.]. Intercept Ltd.: Andover.
De Ponti, O. M. B. & M. M. Steehuis. 1984. Prospects of resistance
to whiteflies from Lycopersicon hirsutum glabratum, pp. 103-106. In: A
New Era in Tomato Breeding. Synopses, IXth Eucarpia Tomato Working Group,
May 1984, Wageningen.
Elhag, E. A. & D. J. Horn. 1983. Resistance of greenhouse whitefly
(Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) to insecticides in selected Ohio greenhouses.
J. Econ. Entomol. 76: 945-948.
Fischer, S.J., & J.B. Shanks. 1974. Host preference of greenhouse
whitefly: Effect of poinsettia cultivars. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 99:
260-262.
Fraenkel, G., J. K. Nayer, O. Nalbandou & R. T. Yamamoto. 1960.
Further investigations into the chemical basis of insect-host plant relationship.
Proc. 11th Int’l. Cong. Entomol., Vienna, 3: 122-126. Hargreaves, J. R.
& L. P. Cooper. 1980. Differential susceptibility of some gladiolus
cultivars to gladiolus Quips, Taeniothrips simplex (Morison). Qslnd. J.
Agric. Animal Sci. 37:161-163.
Haseman, L. 1946. Influence of soil minerals on insects. J. Econ. Entomol.
39:8-11.
Heinz, K.M. & M.P. Parrella. 1990. Biological control of insect
pests on greenhouse marigolds. Environ. Entomol. 19: 825-835.
Hulspas-Jordaan, P. M. and J. C. van Lenteren. 1978. The relationship
between host-plant leaf structure and paratization efficiency of the parasitic
wasp Encarsia formosa Gahan (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). Mededelingen Faculteit
Landbouwwetenschappen Rijksuniversiteit Gent 43/2: 431-440.
Hussey, N. W. & W. J. Parr. 1965. Glasshouse red spider mite. Glasshouse
Crops Res. Inst. Ann. Rep., pp.87-88.
Ibrahim, A. G. & D. S. Madge. 1977. The susceptibility of eighteen
chrysanthemum cultivars to the chrysanthemum leaf miner, Phytomyza syngenesiae.
Plant Pathology 26:103-108,
Joyce, R. J. V. 1958. Effect on the cotton plant in the Sudan Gerzira
of certain leaf feeding pests. Naturew 182: 1463-1464.
Kisha, J. S. A. 1981. Observations on the trapping of the whitefly Bemisia
tabaci by glandular hairs on tomato leaves. Ann. Appl. Biol. 97: 123-127.
Kisha, J. S. A. 1984. Whitefly, Bemisia tabaci, infestations on tomato
varieties and a wild Lycopersicon species. Ann. Appl. Bio. (Supplement,
Tests of Agrochemicals and Cultivars, 5) 184: 124-125.
Kowalewski, E. & R. W. Robinson. 1977. Whitefly resistance in Cucumis.
Bulletin SROP, pp. 149-153.
Lindquist, R.K. 1988. Biological control of whiteflies on greenhouse
ornamentals, pp. 158-162. In J.A. Hall, A.D. Ali, & M.P. Parrella [eds.],
Proc. 4th Conf. on Insect & Dis. Mgt. on Ornamentals. Soc. Amer. Florists,
Alexandria, VA.
Li Zhao Hua, F. Lammes, J. C. van Lemeren, P. W. T. Huisman, A. van
Vianen, and O. M. B. De Ponti. 1987. The parasite-host relationship between
Encarsia formosa Gahan (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) and Trialeurodes vaporariorum
(Westwood) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). J. Applied Entomol 104: 297- 30-4.
Markkula, M., K. Roukka & K. Tiittanen. 1969. Reproduction of Myzus
persicae (Sulz.) and Tetranychus letarius (L. ) on different chrysanthemum
cultivars. Ann. Agric. Fenn. 8: 175483.
Markkula, M., K. Tiinanen. 1969. Effect of fertilizers on the reproduction
of Tetranychus telarius (L.), Myzus persicae (SuIz.) and Acyrthosiphon
pisum Harris. Ann. Agric. Fenn. 8: 9-14.
Obrycki, J. J., M. J. Tauber, & W. M. Tingey. 1983. Predator and
parasitoid interaction with aphid-resistant potatoes to reduce aphid densities:
A two-year field study. J. Econ. Entomol. 76: 456-462.
Oi., D.H., J. P. Sanderson, R. R. Youngman, and M. M. Bames. 1989. Developmental
times of the pacific spider mite (Acari: Tetranychidae) on water-stressed
almond trees. Environ. Entomol. 18(2): 208-212.
Onillon, J. C., J. Onillon, P. Brun, E. Franco, and G. DeCoux. 1986.
Effect of fertilizer on the population level of the citrus whitefly Dialeurodes
citri (Homoptcra: Aleyrodidae). Proceedings of the Expert’s Meeting Integrated
Pest Control in Citrus Groves (Acireale, 26-29 March 1985) pp. 109-120.
Balkerna, Rotterdam.
Parr, J. C. & R. Thurston. 1968. Toxicity of Nicotiana and Petunia
species to larvae of the tobacco hornworm. J. Econ. Entomol. 61: 1525-31.
Parrella, M. P., K. L. Robb, & J. A. Bethke. 1983. Influence of
selected host plants on the biology of Liriomyza trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae).
Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 76: 112-115.
Parrella, M. P., & J. A. Bethke. 1984. Biological studies of Liriomyza
haidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae) on chrysanthemum, aster, and pea. J.
Econ. Entomol. 77: 342-345.
Parrella, M.P., T.D. Paine, J.A. Bethke, K.L. Robb, & J. Hall. 1991.
Evaluation of Encarsia formsa (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) for biological
control of sweetpotato whitefly (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on poinsettia.
Environ. Entomol. 20: 713-719.
Poe, S. L. & G. J. Wilfret. 1972. Factors affecting spider mite
(Tetranychus urticae Koch) population development on carnation: relative
cultivar susceptibility and physical characteristics. Proc. Fla. St. Hort.
Soc. 85: 384-387.
Sanderson, J.P., and G.W. Ferrentino. 1990b. Beat greenhouse whiteflies
with a proven biological — Encarsia formsa. GrowerTalks 54(4): 108-114.
Schuster, D. J. & B. K. Harbaugh. 1979a. Chrysanthemum cultivars
differ in foliar leafminer damage. HortScience 14: 271-272.
Schuster, D. J. & B. K. Harbaugh. 1979b. Factors affecting evaluation
of foliar damage of chrysanthemum cultivars by a leafminer. HortScience
14: 273-274.
Selander, J., M. Markkula & K. Tiittanen. 1972. Resistance of the
aphids Myzus persicae, Aulacorthum solani and Aphis gossypii to insecticides,
and the influence of the host plant on this resistance. Ann. Agric. Fenn.
11: 141-145.
Singh, V. S. 1984. Relative resistance of ornamental poppy, Papaver
spp. to Phytomyza horticola Goureau and Aphis fabae solanella Theobald.
J. Entomol. Res. 8: 215-216.
Sippell, D.W., O.S. Bindra, & H. Khalifa. 1983. Resistance in cotton
to whitefly (Bemisia tabaci). In: 10th Ind. Cong. Pi. Prot. 1983. Vol.2.
Proceedings of a conference held at Brighton, England, 20-25 Nov., 1983.
Plant protection for human welfare. Croyden, U.K.; British Crop Protection
Council. p.841.
Starks, K. J., R. Muniappan, & R. D. Eikenbary. 1972. Interaction
between plant resistance and parasitism against the greenbug on barley
and sorghum. Ann. Entomol. Sue. Amer. 65: 650-655.
Van der Kamp, R. J. & J. C. Van Lenteren. 1981. The parasite-host
relationship between Encarsia formosa Gahan (Hymenopterx Aphelitudae) and
Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Westwood) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). XI. Do mechanical
barriers of the host plant prevent successful penetration of the phloem
by whitefly larvae and adults? Z. Ang. EnL 92: 149-159.
van Emden, H. F. 1966. Plant insect relationships and pest control.
World Rev. Pest Control 5: 115-123. Wardlow, L. R. 1985. Pyrethroid resistance
in glasshouse whitefly. Med. Fac. Lanbouww. Rijksuniv. Gent, 50: 555-557.
Wardlow, L. R., F. A. B. Ludlam & L. F. Bradley. 1976. Pesticide
resistance in glasshouse whitefly (Trialeurodes vaporarioram West). Pestic.
Sci. 7: 320-324.
Wardlow, L. R., F. A. B. Ludlam & N. French. 1972. Insecticide resistance
in glasshouse whitefly. Nature 239: 164-165.
Wardlow, L. R., F. A. B. Ludlam & R. P. Hammon. 1975. A comparison
of the effectiveness of insecticides against glasshouse whitefly (Trialeurodes
vapor. Ann. Appl. Biol. 81:433-435.
Webb, R. E. & F. F. Smith. 1969. Effect of temperature on resistance
in lima bean, tomato, and chrysanthemum to Liriomyza munda . J. Econ. Entomol.
62: 458-462.
Wyatt, I. J. 1965. The distribution of Myzus persicae (Sulz.) on year-round
chrysanthemums 1. Summer season. Ann. Appl. Biol. 56:439459.
Youngman, R. R., J. P. Sanderson, and M. M. Barnes. 1988. Life history
parameters of Teiranychus pacificus McGregor (Acari: Tetranychidae) on
almonds under differential water stress. Environ. Entomol. 17(3): 488-495.
Zchori-Fein, E., R.T. Roush, and J.P. Sanderson. 1991. Potential for
integration of biological and chemical control of greenhouse whiteflies
on poinsettia. (submitted to J. Econ. Entomol.)
7. DETAILED BUDGET
Graduate Research Assistant (stipend plus fees)
$16,507
Research Technician (Half-time)
8,000
Benefits (30.46% of salary)
2,437
Materials and Supplies
[Fertilizers, pots, growing media, rooting strips,
2,000
several types of insect cages, parasitoids,
lab fees for plant and soil nutrient analyses,
shipping costs for plant material, computer supplies,
mainframe computer tinie, demurrage charge for CO2
tanks, lab equipment (carboys, pipettes, vials, etc.),
other miscellaneous supplies]
Total 1992 Project Cost
$28,944
C, PROJECT LEADER QUALIRCATIONS
Dr. John Sanderson is Assistant Professor of Entomology at Cornell University
with research (50%) and extension (50%) responsibilities on insect and
mite pest management on greenhouse floral crops. He received his B.S. degree
in Zoology at San Diego State University, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in
Entomology at the University of California, Riverside. He then completed
a postdoctoral position with Dr. Michael Parrella at UC Riverside prior
to coming to Cornell. He has published numerous scientific and extension
articles, and has been an invited speaker at numerous industry conferences,
including several of the SAF Conferences on Insect and Disease Management
on Ornamentals. Dr. Sanderson is also organizer of the North American Working
Group on Integrated Control in Greenhouses, under the auspices of the International
Organization for Biological and Integrated Control of Noxious Animals and
Plants. He is an integral member of Cornell’s Greenhouse IPM Team, and
of Cornell’s effort in Controlled Environment Agriculture.
