Skip to main content
Log in

Assessing compensation for insect damage in mixed plantings of resistant and susceptible potatoes

  • Published:
American Potato Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Plant mixtures have been proposed for pesticidal transgenic potatoes as a means to reduce selection intensity favoring resistant insect genotypes. Colorado potato beetle,Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say), defoliation was simulated in mixed plantings of susceptible and resistant potato “mimics” to evaluate yield compensation. Various mixtures of susceptible and resistant potato were planted at two densities and two locations in eastern North Carolina. Resistant plants were undamaged throughout the season whereas susceptible plants were completely defoliated by hand either during early or late bloom. The ability of non-defoliated plants to compensate for neighboring defoliated plants was investigated through single-plant and smallplot field experiments for 2 years.

Yield compensation for defoliated plants by neighboring non-defoliated plants was not evident in our studies. Yield of two potato plants, positioned on either side of a defoliated plant, was not different from yield of two potato plants positioned on either side of a non-defoliated potato plant. Compensation in mixtures of resistant and susceptible potato was not evident using several non-linear regression analyses. A negative linear relationship existed between yield and an increasing percent of susceptible plants in the mixture for all planting densities, at each location, every year.

Compendio

Las mezclas de plantas han sido propuestas para papas transgénicas a los pesticidas como una manera de reducir la intensidad de selección que favorece a los genotipos resistentes de insectos. Se simuló la defoliación causada por el escarabajo de la papa de Colorado,Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say), en siembras mixtas que “imitan” plantas de papas susceptibles y resistentes, para evaluar la compensatión en rendimientos. Se sembraron varias mezclas de papas susceptibles y resistentes a dos densidades y en dos localidades del este de Carolina del Norte. Las plantas resistentes permanecieron sin daños durante toda la temporada mientras que las susceptibles fueron totalmente defoliadas a mano al comienzo o al final de la floración. Se investigó por dos años la capacidad de las plantas no defoliadas, para compensar la defoliación de las plantas vecinas mediante experimentos con plantas individuales y en pequeñas parcelas en el campo.

La compensación en rendimiento-para las plantas defoliadas-por las plantas vecinas no defoliadas, no se hizo evidente en los estudios. El rendimiento de dos plantas de papa, localizadas a ambos lados de una planta defoliada, no se diferenció del rendimiento de dos plantas de papa localizadas a ambos lados de una planta de papa no defoliada. La compensación en mezclas de papas resistentes y susceptibles no se hizo evidente al utilizar varios análisis de regresión no linear. Se presentó una relación linear negativa entre el rendimiento y un creciente porcentaje de plantas susceptibles de la mezcla, para todas las densidades de siembra, en cada localidad y año.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  1. Beresford, W.C. 1967. Effect of simulated hail damage on yield and quality of potatoes. Am Potato J 44:347–355.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bishop, J.C. and D.N. Wright. 1959. The effect of size and spacing of seed pieces on the yield and grade of White Rose potatoes in Kern County, California. Am Potato J 36:235–240.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Capinera, J.L. and W.J. Roltsch. 1980. Response of wheat seedlings to actual and simulated migratory grasshopper defoliation. J Econ Entomol 73:258–261.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cranshaw, W.S. and E.B. Radcliffe. 1980. Effect of defoliation on yield of potatoes. J Econ Entomol 73:131–134.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Entz, M.H. and L.J. LaCroix. 1984. The effect of in-row spacing and seedtype on the yield and quality of potato cultivar. Am Potato J 61:93–105.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ewing, E.E. 1981. Overview of potato physiology related to integrated pest management, pp. 1–12.In: J.H. Lashomb and R. Casagrande [eds.], Advances in potato pest management. Hutchinson & Ross, Stroundsburg, PA. 288 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ferro, D.N. 1993. Potential for resistance toBacillus thuringiensis: Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) - A model system. Am Entomol 39:38–44.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ferro, D.N., B.J. Morzuch and D. Margolies. 1983. Crop loss assessment of the Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on potatoes in western Massachusetts. J Econ Entomol 76:349–356.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Forgash, A.J. 1981. Insecticide resistance of the Colorado potato beetle,Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say), pp. 34–37.In: J.H. Lashomb and R. Casagrande [eds.], Advances in potato pest management. Hutchinson & Ross, Stroundsburg, PA. 288 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Forgash, A.J. 1985. Insecticide resistance of the Colorado potato beetle, pp. 33–52.In: D.N. Ferro and R.H. Voss [eds.], Proceedings of the symposium on the Colorado potato beetle, XVIIth International Congress of Entomology. Mass Agric Exp Stn Bull 704. Amherst, MA. 144 pp.

  11. French, N.M. II, P.A. Follett, B.A. Nault and G.G. Kennedy. 1993. Colonization of potato fields in eastern North Carolina by Colorado potato beetle. Entomol exp appl 68:247–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gauthier, N.L., R.N. Hofmaster and M. Semel. 1981. History of Colorado potato beetle control, pp. 13–34.In: J.H. Lashomb and R. Casagrande [eds.], Advances in potato pest management. Hutchinson & Ross, Stroundsburg, PA. 288 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gould, F. 1986. Simulation models for predicting durability of insect-resistant germ plasm: Hessian fly (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae)-resistant winter wheat. Environ Entomol 15:11–23.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gould, F. 1988. Evolutionary biology and genetically engineered crops. BioSci 38:26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gould, F., P. Follett, B. Nault and G.G. Kennedy. 1994. Resistance management strategies for transgenic potato plants, pp. 255–277.In: G. Zehnder, R.K. Jansson, M.L. Powelson and K.V. Raman [eds.], Advances in potato pest biology and management. APS Press, St. Paul, MN. 655 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hare, J.D. 1980. Impact of defoliation by the Colorado potato beetle on potato yields. J Econ Entomol 73:369–373.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Heim, D.C., G.G. Kennedy and J.W. Van Duyn. 1990. Survey of insecticide resistance among North Carolina Colorado Potato Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Populations. J Econ Entomol 83:1229–1235.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Houghland, G.V.C. & R.V. Akeley. 1959. Effects of seed spacing and fertilizer rate on field performances of potato varieties and on financial returns. Am Potato J 36:227–234.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Little, T.M. and FJ. Hills. 1978. Agricultural Experimentation: Design and analysis. Wiley & Sons, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mallet, J. and P. Porter. 1992. Preventing insect adaptation to insect-resistant crops: are seed mixtures or refugia the best strategy? Proc R Soc Lond B 250:165–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. McGaughey, W.H. and M.E. Whalon. 1992. Managing insect resistance toBacillus thuringiensis toxins. Science 258:1451–1455.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Miller, O.L., U. Rahardja and M.E. Whalon. 1990. Resistance to Bt in Colorado potato beetle. Resist Pest Man Newsl 2:25.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Nault, B.A. 1994. Ecology and management of Colorado potato beetle and European corn borer on spring-grown potatoes. Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State University. 174 pp.

  24. Nelson, D.C. 1967. Effects of row spacing and plant populations on yields and tuber-size of potatoes. Am Potato J 44:17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Poston, F.L., L.P. Pedigo, R.B. Pearce and R.B. Hammond. 1976. Effects of artificial and insect defoliation on soybean net photosynthesis. J Econ Entomol 69:109–112.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Poston, F.L., L.P. Pedigo and S.M. Welch. 1983. Economic injury levels: reality and practicality. Bull Entomol Soc Amer 29:49–53.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Raffa, K.F. 1989. Genetic engineering of trees to enhance resistance to insects. BioSci 39:524–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rex, B.L., W.A. Russell and H.R. Wolfe. 1987. The effect of spacing of seedpieces on yield, quality and economic value for processing of shepody potatoes in Manitoba. Am Potato J 64:177–189.

    Google Scholar 

  29. SAS Institute. 1990. SAS Users Guide. Cary, NC.

  30. Shields, E.J. and J.A. Wyman. 1984. Effect of defoliation at specific growth stages on potato yields. J Econ Entomol 77:1194–1199.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sokal, R.R. and J. Rohlf. 1969. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. Freeman and Co., San Francisco. 776 pp.

  32. Sparks, W.C. and G.W. Woodbury. 1959. Stages of potato plant growth. Idaho Agric Exp Stn Bull 309:22 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Tisler, A.M. and G.W. Zehnder. 1990. Insecticide resistance in the Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on the eastern shore of Virginia. J Econ Entomol 83:666–671.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Wellik, M.J., J.E. Slosser and R.D. Kirby. 1981. Effects of simulated insect defoliation on potatoes. Am Potato J 58:627–632.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Whalon, M.E., D.I. Miller, R.M. Hollingworth, E.J. Grafius and J.R. Miller. 1993. Selection of a Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) strain resistant toBacillus thuringiensis. J Econ Entomol 86:226–233.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Zehnder, G.W. and G.K. Evanylo. 1989. Influence of extent and timing of Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) defoliation on potato tuber production in eastern Virginia. J Econ Entomol 82:948–953.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nault, B.A., Follett, P.A., Gould, F. et al. Assessing compensation for insect damage in mixed plantings of resistant and susceptible potatoes. American Potato Journal 72, 157–176 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02849351

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02849351

Additional KeyWords

Navigation