Library

Description / Table of Contents: Summary Using the adult size (length, weight, frontal projection of surface) of young virginoparous bean aphids as a parameter for antibiotic effects of the host plant, detailed knowledge is wanted of postembryonic growth reactions of the aphids to different environmental factors. On the same food material daughters of small mothers grow bigger, those of big ones smaller than their mothers, but they still differ significantly from each other. Direction and scope of the size modification between two generations depend on the nutritional difference of the substratum on which mothers and daughters develop. On a substratum of high value and with 20°, big mothers produce nearly two-thirds of their total offspring during the first week and another third in the second week, while the small ones begin only with a quarter. But then they recover with 40% in the second and a quarter in the third week and so they finally reach 84% of the total production of big mothers, though with a retardation of one week. Also the quantitative proportions of embryogenesis during pro- and postmetamorphic development and therefore the sequence of births are results of the nutritional situation during the larval and imaginal stages, respectively, of the virginoparae. Whereas with rising temperature the developmental speed increases in the usual manner —with the minimum at 5° and the maximum not much above 30° —, growth is already optimal at 14–15° and decreases promptly with temperatures above the optimum. Obviously with temperatures too high or too low the surplus of high energy material (amino acids) necessary for growth processes is consumed by the maintenance metabolism or blocked under these conditions. Aphis fabae-virginoparae grown on leaf discs floating upside down on tap water develop into smaller adults as diameters (22–16–10.5 mm) decrease or population density (2, 6 or 20 larvae on 200 mm2 leaf disc each) increases (differences significant at the 0,1% level). While on leaves in situ such differences do not prove significant, young virginoparae grow the bigger, the more the leaf area increased relatively during their larval development. Therefore the differences in the antibiotic aphid resistance of young Rastatt and Schlanstedt field bean plants of the same age may be reduced to a difference in phase of the growth of their leaves. On leaf discs of different age the biggest adults develop on discs from mature assimilating foliage, which after isolation may evidently mobilize more protein reserves than younger or older ones, probably as the young leaf itself yet depends on an influx of amino acids, and the old leaf already is more or less exhausted of them. Bean aphids developing on normal intact, detached, or detached and re-rooted primary leaves of the susceptible field bean “Schlanstedter” show nearly no significant differences in adult size, but on corresponding leaves of the resistant “Rastatter” they react with increased and decreased growth respectively (in comparison with their normal diminished size). The Schlanstedt field beans provide an uniform and equivalent feeding basis for the growth of black bean aphids during nearly all stages of their physiological development. They represent a main host (host of class I in the sense of Mosbacher These are plants, which are suitable hosts for an aphids in any of their physiological stages, whereas host plants of class II being so only in a distinct phase (growth or senescence) of development. ). The Rastatt field beans on the other hand are secondary hosts (hosts of class II), which guarantee a sufficient promotion of aphid growth (in the sense of Kennedy et al.) only in stages of an increased mobility of soluble protein elements in growing or senescent organs.

Description / Table of Contents: Summary Aphis fabae, Aphis craccivora, Acyrthosiphon pisum, and Megoura vicae (abbreviated Af, Ac, Ap and Mv, respectively) were allowed to develop under similar uncaged conditions on Rastatter (R) and Schlanstedter (S) field beans. Large, sometimes contradictory, differences in the fecundities and weights attained by adult apterous virginoparae on these plants were recoreded and ascribed to “postinfestation” resistance effects. Ap, which feed only on leaves, and Mv, which feed exclusively on internodes, weigh significantly more (17–18%) on R than on S. In contrast, Af, which feed on various plant parts, are 61% heavier on the leaves and 33% heavier on the stems of S than on the corresponding parts of R.However, Ac, which have a distribution on the plants similar to that of Af, are somewhat heavier (12%) on R-leaves and on S-stems than on the corresponding plant parts of the other variety. Such differences are greatly diminished if the aphids are reared on excised leaves and stems immersed in water. In this case growth of the aphids on excised parts of the “resistant” varieties (on which they previously grew poorly) closely approaches that on the intact “satisfactory” varieties (on which they grew well). Only small (Af, Ac) or no (Ap, Mv) improvement in growth results when the aphids are reared on excised parts of the “satisfactory” variety. Thus, the weights of apterous adults of Ap on excised S-leaves were only 17% greater than on intact S-leaves, whereas they were similar on excised and intact R-leaves. For Af, adult weights were 81% greater on excised R-leaves, 51% greater on excised S-leaves, and only 19% or no greater on excised R- and S-stems, respectively, than those on the corresponding intact plant parts. The possibility is discussed that these contradictory effects result from a mobilization and increase of proteinaceous constituents in the excised plant parts. Whereas the nutrition and growth of aphids on the “resistant” variety may thus become optimal, such an increase above an already optimal nutrient level on the “satisfactory” variety would not increase growth beyond the limit already achieved by a species. It is further deduced that “postinfestational” resistance to aphids of field beans depends on the nutrient value of the sap available to the aphids. However, since the nutritional demands of different aphid species may also differ, it is unlikely that a single plant species will be resistant to aphids in general.