Thrips resistance in the onion
AuthorsH. A. Jones
S. F. Bailey
S. L. Emsweller
Authors AffiliationsH. A. Jones was Professor of Truck Crops and Olericulturist in the Experiment Station; S. F. Bailey was Junior Entomologist in the Experiment Station; S. L. Emsweller was Assistant Professor of Truck Crops and Assistant Olericulturist in the Experiment Station.
Hilgardia 8(7):213-232. DOI:10.3733/hilg.v08n07p213. June 1934.
Abstract does not appear. First page follows.
The selection and breeding of plants resistant to parasites had its inception chiefly in the field of plant pathology, more specifically in the development of cereals resistant to rust. While the breeding for resistance to insects is still in its infancy, the possibilities in this field appear to be almost unlimited. In certain cases, among which may be mentioned the control of onion thrips, breeding for resistance seems to offer promise. In this paper are presented data which show that in the case of the onion certain varieties do possess a definite resistance to thrips, and the characters thought to be responsible for this resistance are described in some detail.
Howitt,(22)5 McColloch,(30) Martin,(29) and others have given excellent general reviews of the development of resistant crop plants; here only the more important papers concerned with resistance to sucking insects are reviewed.
The causes of resistance to insects have been grouped by Wardle and Buckle,(43) McColloch,(30) and Wardle(42) as physical, chemical, or physiological. The first category includes such characters as hairiness, thickness of epidermis, thickness of seed coat and rind, and habit of growth; the second, the presence of such compounds as acids, alkaloids, essential oils, and tannin together with the potash-phosphoric acid ratio; the third, such characters as vigor, seasonal adaptation, early maturity, ability to recover from injury, aand po-sitive or negative response to specific stimuli. In most instances, however, the characters, whether physical (morphological), chemical, or physiological, are probably genetic in nature and are therefore governed by the laws of inheritance. Resistance may result from one character, or from several combined; and the effectiveness of a character may vary with the soil condition and climate.
Among the physical or morphological characters that seem to be intimately associated with host resistance is hairiness.
 Andrews E. A. Some notes on attempts to produce immunity from insect attack on tea. 4th Ent. Meeting, Pusa, Rept. Proc. 1921. 4:56-59.
 Bailey S. F. The biology of the bean thrips. Hilgardia. 1933. 7:467-522. DOI: 10.3733/hilg.v07n12p467 [CrossRef]
 Beach S. A., Maney T. J. Mendelian inheritance in Prunus hybrids. Amer. Breeders’ Assoc. Ann. Rept. 1911. 7:214-226.
 Bioletti F. T., Flossfeder F. C. H., Way A. E. Phylloxera-resistant stocks. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 1921. 331:82-140. http://archive.org/details/phylloxeraresist331biol
 Börner C. The question of the native home of the vine-louse. Ztschr. Angew. Ent. 1921. 8:163-167.
 Comes H. Prophylaxis in vegetable pathology. Bol. Agr. Tecnica y Economica Madrid. 1917. 9:508-514.
 Davidson J. Biological studies of Aphis rumicis Linn. reproduction on varieties of Vicia faba. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1922. 9:135-145. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7348.1922.tb05943.x [CrossRef]
 Davidson J. Biological studies of Aphis rumicis Linn. The penetration of plant tissues and the source of food supply of aphids. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1923. 10:35-54. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7348.1923.tb05652.x [CrossRef]
 Davidson W. M., Nougaret R. L. The grape phylloxera in California. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bul. 1921. 903:1-128.
 De Candolle A. Origin of cultivated plants. 1884. London: Kegan Paul, Trench &; Co.
 Dementiev A. On the question of the internal therapy of plants. Jour. Exp. Agron. Petrograd. Abstracted in Rev. Appl. Ent. (sec. A) 1915. 1914. 3:394-395.
 Fenton F. A., Hartzell A. Bionomics and control of the potato leafhopper. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bul. 1923. 78:377-440.
 Flint W. P., Hackleman J. C. Corn varieties for chinch-bug infested areas. Illinois Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 1923. 243:540-550.
 Forbes S. A. Aspects of progress in economic entomology. Jour. Econ. Ent. 1909. 2:25-35.
 Gernert W. B. Aphis immunity of teosinte-corn hybrids. Science. 1917. 46:390-392. DOI: 10.1126/science.46.1190.390 [CrossRef]
 Harland S. C. Notes on resistance to cotton leaf-blister mite with special reference to budded cottons, and to cotton hybrids. West Indian Bul. 1916. 16:78-82.
 Harland S. C. A note on resistance to black scale in cotton. West Indian Bul. 1917. 16:255-256.
 Harland S. C. The inheritance of immunity to leaf blister mite (Eriophyes gossypii Banks) in cotton. West Indian Bul. 1920. 17:162-166.
 Harvey R. B. Sunscald of tomatoes. Minnesota Studies Plant Sci. Studies Biol. Sci. 1924. 5:229-234.
 Hayes W. P., Johnston C. O. The reaction of certain grasses to chinch bug attack. Jour. Agr. Research. 1925. 31:575-583.
 Hollowell E. A., Monteith John Jr., Flint W. P. Leafhopper injury to clover. Phytopathology. 1927. 17:399-404.
 Howitt J. E. A review of our knowledge concerning immunity and resistance in plants. Quebec Soc. Protect. Plants 16th Ann. Rept. 1924. 1923-1924:9-24.
 Jewett H. H. The resistance of certain red clovers and alfalfas to leafhopper injury. Kentucky Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 1932. 329:155-172.
 Jewett H. H. The resistance of leaves of red clover to puncturing. Jour. Econ. Ent. 1933. 26:1135-1137.
 Jones H. A., Emsweller S. L. Methods of breeding onions. Hilgardia. 1933. 7:625-642. DOI: 10.3733/hilg.v07n16p625 [CrossRef]
 Lees A. H. Reversion and resistance to “big bud” in black currants. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1918. 5:11-27. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7348.1918.tb05278.x [CrossRef]
 Lepelley R. Resistance of apple to woolly aphis. Jour. Pom. Hort. Sci. 1927. 6:209-241.
 MacLeod G. F. Some examples of varietal resistance of plants to insect attacks. Jour. Econ. Ent. 1933. 26:62-67.
 Martin H. The scientific principles of plant protection. 1928. London: Longmans, Green &; Co. p. 26-29.
 McColloch J. W. The resistance of plants to insect injury. Kansas State Hort. Soc. Bien. Rept. 1924. 37:196-208.
 Monteith John Jr., Hollowell E. A. Pathological symptoms in legumes caused by the potato leafhopper. Jour. Agr. Research. 1929. 38:649-677.
 Monzen K. The woolly apple aphis in Japan with special reference to its life history and susceptibility of the host plant. Verhandl. 3rd Internatl. Ent. Cong., Zurich. 1926. 1925:249-275.
 Mumford E. P. On the curly top disease of sugar beet: a biochemical and histological study. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1930. 17:28-35. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7348.1930.tb07331.x [CrossRef]
 Pieters A. J. Red clover’s hairiness in American types is due to the leafhopper. U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook. 1928. 1928:521-524.
 Poos F. W. Leafhopper injury to legumes. Jour. Econ. Ent. 1929. 22:146-153.
 Poos F. W., Smith F. F. A comparison of oviposition and nymphal development of Empoasca fabae (Harris) on different host plants. Jour. Econ. Ent. 1931. 24:361-371.
 Salman J. A variety of apple immune to aphis. Wiener Landw. 1921. 61:269 Rev. Appl. Ent. (sec. A) 10: 442. 1922
 Sanford F. An experiment on killing tree scale by poisoning the sap of the tree. Science. 1914. 40:519-520. DOI: 10.1126/science.40.1032.519 [CrossRef]
 Searls E. M. A preliminary report of the resistance of certain legumes to certain homopterous insects. Jour. Econ. Ent. 1932. 25:46-49.
 Staniland L. N. The immunity of apple stocks from attacks of woolly aphis (Eriosoma lanigera Hausmann). Part I. The relative resistance of different root stocks. Jour. Pom. Hort. Sci. 1924. 3:85-95.
 Staniland L. N. The immunity of apple stocks from attacks of woolly aphis (Eriosoma lanigera Hausmann). Part II. The causes of the relative resistance of the stocks. Bul. Ent. Res. 1924. 15:157-170. DOI: 10.1017/S0007485300031527 [CrossRef]
 Wardle R. A. Chapter I. Host resistance. The problems of applied entomology. 1929. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. 587p.
 Wardle R. A., Buckle P. Principles of insect control. Chapter I Host resistance. 1923. London: Manchester University Press.
 Wardle R. A., Simpson R. The biology of the Thysanoptera with reference to the cotton plant. III. Relation between feeding habits and plant lesions. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1927. 14:513-528. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7348.1927.tb07030.x [CrossRef]
 Worrall L. Jassid resistant cottons. Union South Africa. Jour. Dept. Agr. 1923. 7:225-228.
Also in this issue:Markets for united states rice: Stable domestic market and increasing world supplies pose problem of export outlets and U. S. farm price
Fruit set in melon breeding: Hand pollination found to be less effective than pollination by honeybees in experiments at Davis
Walnut aphid investigations: Tests in northern California during the 1953 season stressed need for thorough treatment for control
Parasites of sheep and deer: Mutual parasites of domestic sheep and Columbian black-tailed deer studied for transference factors
Root fumigation: Carrot and beet roots used in tests for nematode control
Artichoke plume moth damage: Large part of 1953–54 losses believed to be result of inadequate sanitation and cultural practices
Drought survival of ponderosa: Pine seedlings treated with simulated dew survive by month nontreated controls in greenhouse tests
Alkali soil reclamation tests: Experiments in Tulelake Basin show encouraging improvements in soil after treatment with gypsum
Sulfur in fertilizer programs: Long-term studies of influence of sulfur on navel orange production indicate no improvement in yield
Valencia orange fruit size: Affected by the relation of calcium to magnesium as demonstrated by tests with nutrient solutions
Control of cutworms on citrus: Infestations of pest in certain areas of southern California in May 1954 controlled by spray treatment
The inheritance of resistance to rust in the snapdragon