Garden pests of legumes (peas, beans) and methods of dealing with them
Garden pests of legumes (peas, beans) and methods of dealing with them
As in other garden plants, legumes also have their enemies, which necessarily have to fight to not lose the harvest.
Pests of peas, beans and beans, usually polyphagous.
These include the sucker, meadow moth, pea weevil (bruchus), aphid, pea moth, pea weevil, and so on.
We will consider methods of struggle against the most dangerous, which feed on seeds and can kill the plant at the very early stage of development.
Bruchus (pea weevil), one of the biggest pests of legumes. The bug is 5mm long, with a spot similar to the white cross, located on the fender liner. Females lay eggs on young shoots of beans, peas.
After about 14 days the larvae, which fit between the walls of the pods and climb inside developing fruit.
Then the pupation of the larvae. They can be found in the dark spots on the shell.
To protect the crop from this pest of legumes, you need to follow the rules of rotation of crops.
Try to destroy the infested peas that they do not remain in the soil, they overwinter pea weevil.
Spend a deep digging of the soil to bruchus couldn’t get to the surface. Seeds, intended for planting, place in a container and pour salty water, infested peas will emerge.
Another representative of pests of beans and peas – aphids. This species is distinguished from others by size. Pea aphids are larger than others and reach 5-6 mm in length. Lay eggs in black, a little elongated shape.
In the spring the larvae leave their winter quarters, located on the stems of legumes and begin to draw out juices. They are able to fly to other plants and therefore the extent of their settlement can be enormous.
Females can produce up to 170 eggs, and during the growing season from 4 to 10 generations, depending on weather conditions.
To fight these pests of legumes, it is necessary to adhere to elementary rules. Destroy all perennial weeds grow near peas, beans, beans.
Try to get early planting, then the harvest loss will be reduced. Not to plant culture on one and the same place.
Pea moth is also a dangerous enemy of peas and beans.
This little butterfly can cause enormous damage to young seedlings. It looks quite innocent, dark brown with a wingspan of 1.5 cm.
During flowering legumes lays up to 300 eggs on the leaves of plants. Eventually they turn yellow and very difficult to detect on the beans.
After about a week the caterpillars appear, they burrow through the pods and climb inside to the peas. All the harvest is ruined.
To combat this pest of peas and beans use methods of farming, same as with others. Deep digging, crop rotation, destruction of infected plants.
Identification & Distribution:
Acyrthosiphon pisum apterae (first image below) are pale green or pink with red eyes. Their antennae are 1.0-1.6 times as long as the body. The antennal segments, tibiae and siphunculi have dark apices (cf. Acyrthosiphon loti which does not have the antennal joints darkened). The siphunculi are tapering and very thin with the diameter of a siphunculus in the middle less than the diameter of the hind tibia ; the siphunculi are 1.2-1.9 times the length of the cauda. The cauda is long and tapered. The body length of Acyrthosiphon pisum apterae ranges from 2.2 to 5.0 mm.
The alate viviparous female Acyrthosiphon pisum (shown above) has the head and thorax only slightly darker than the abdomen, which is pale with small marginal sclerites.
The clarified slide mounts below are of adult viviparous female Acyrthosiphon pisum : wingless, and winged.
Micrographs of clarified mounts by permission of Roger Blackman, copyright AWP all rights reserved.
The pea aphid can be found feeding on about 20 genera in the family Fabaceae, but especially on Medicago, Melilotus, Trifolium, Dorycnium and Lotus. Acyrthosiphon pisum is a major pest of peas and alfalfa, partly because of direct feeding damage and partly because of virus transmission. Adults readily fall to the ground if the plant is disturbed. The pea aphid is found worldwide in temperate climates, where it is monoecious and holocyclic.
Biology & Ecology:
Pea aphid genome
The pea aphid is regarded as a model species for studying a range of biological phenomena including polymorphisms, insect -bacterial symbioses, the genetics of adaptation and plant virus transmission. (Brisson & Stern, 2006). Partly for this reason it was selected for genome sequencing. Results from The International Aphid Genomics Consortium (2010) have shown an expanded total gene set with remarkable levels of gene duplication, as well as aphid lineage-specific gene losses. Gene family expansions relative to other published genomes include genes involved in chromatin modification and sugar transport. The inventory of metabolic genes in the pea aphid genome suggests that there is extensive metabolite exchange between the aphid and the symbiont Buchnera, including sharing of amino acid biosynthesis. It is anticipated that the genome sequencing will be of great help in clarifying the situation with regards to two topics below — biotypes and the source of the carotenoid pigment in the red morph of the pea aphid.
The pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum includes a number of different host races termed biotypes. These are sympatric populations in partial reproductive isolation that are specialized to different host plants. Peccoud et al. (2009) investigated host specialization and gene flow among populations of the pea aphid complex. Genetic markers and tests of host plant specificity indicated the existence of at least 11 well distinguished host specialized sympatric populations in Western Europe. Three of these, biotype A on broom (Cytisus scoparius), biotype B on restharrows (Ononis repens and Ononis spinosa) and biotype I on meadow vetchling (Lathyrus pratensis) are nearing complete speciation because no hybrid could be detected with any other sympatric biotype. The other 8 constitute host specialized races and likely belong to the same species.
The two pictures below show aphids of biotype A on Cytisus scoparius. On broom we have always found Acyrthosiphon pisum predominantly on the developing pods, although they are presumably also found on other parts of the plant.
We have also found large numbers of pea aphids on sweet peas (Lathyrus odoratus) (see pictures below). We suspect this is identical to biotype I , which lives on Lathyrus pratensis.
It seems likely that the two biotypes (A & I ) pictured above will soon be recognised as separate species.
Until recently it was assumed that all the carotenoid pigments in aphids were either obtained from plants or from intracellular symbionts. But then Moran & Jarvik (2010) unexpectedly found that the pea aphid genome itself encodes multiple enzymes for carotenoid biosynthesis. Phylogenetic analyses showed that these aphid genes are derived from fungal genes, which have been integrated into the aphid genome and duplicated. (see also Not exactly rocket science).
The polymorphism appears to be maintained by balanced selection from two predatory species — the predator Coccinella septempunctata and the parasitoid Aphidius ervi. Losey et al. (1997) found that when parasitism rates were high relative to predation rates, the proportion of red morphs increased relative to green morphs. The converse was true when predation rates were high relative to parasitism rates. Detailed laboratory and field studies confirmed that green morphs suffer higher rates of parasitism than red morphs, whereas red morphs are more likely to be preyed on by predators than green morphs are. Quite why there are these differences is less clear. Further evidence that predation drives the stable coexistence ratios between red and green pea aphid morphs is given by Balog & Schmitz (2013) and Farhoudi et al. (2014).
Caillud & Losey (2009) explored the genetic basis of colour polymorphism in the pea aphid. The polymorphism proved to be determined by a single biallelic locus (named colorama) with alleles P and p being dominant to green. The putative genotypes are Pp or PP for pink morphs and pp for green morphs. Cytoplasmic effects and or maternally inherited symbionts appear to play no role in the inheritance of colour polymorphism in pea aphids.
For a discussion on aposematic and cryptic colour in aphids, see our blog.
Numerous studies have looked at the diverse natural enemy complex which attacks Acyrthosiphon pisum. In the USA several Aphidius parasitoid have been found attacking Acyrthosiphon pisum on alfalfa. Several of these have been introduced in recent years to aid in biological control (Gonzalez et al., 1995). The native Aphidius pulcher (= A. pisivorus) was displace by A. smithi, introduced from India. van den Bosch et al. (1967) described the density dependent parasitism of the pea aphid by Aphidius smithi. Then Aphidius smithi was itself displaced by Aphidius ervi introduced from France.
The pictures below show an aphid in the process of being mummified, and a completely mummified aphid.
The emergent parasitoids are shown below. They are as yet unidentified but are most likely Aphidius ervi.
There has been increasing interest in the impact of what is called intraguild predation on the efficacy of biological control agents. This is where one predator eats another predator. It is not uncommon, for example, for predatory coccinellid larvae to eat other coccinellid larvae, or even younger larvae of their own species. Snyder and Ives (2001) found that predatory carabid beetles diminished pea aphid biological control by feeding on parasitoid pupae. However, they did not determine the impact of the rest of the predator guild on the interaction.
Hence Snyder and Ives (2003) assessed whether predation by other predators in the community might compensate for the negative effects of carabid predation. Parasitoids were able to suppress aphid densities, but the effect occurred with a time delay so that aphids still reached high densities before the decline started. The generalist predator guild had an immediate effect on aphid population dynamics, but only reduced the rate of aphid increase. Thus, aphids still reached high densities when generalists were the only abundant natural enemy. Because specialists and generalists contributed additively to aphid biological control, biological control was the most effective when both types of natural enemy were present.
A recent study looked at seasonal, spatial and diel partitioning of Acyrthosiphon pisum predators in alfalfa fields (Ximenez-Embuna et al., 2014). Coccinellids were the most abundant predators, followed by syrphid larvae. Coccinellids were also responsible for high levels of predation throughout the year whilst syrphids were only found in spring and summer. The two main predator groups also showed distinct diel patterns, with coccinellids observed only during day and syrphids only during night. The picture below shows a predatory syrphid larvae possibly with its ‘eye’ on a nice young nymph for breakfast.
Fungal parasites (Entomophthora species) are also important natural enemies of the pea aphid. Wilding (1975) found three species of Entomophthora affecting Acyrthosiphon pisum on beans at Rothamsted, UK. E. thaxteriana, the commonest species occurred each year. Entomophthora aphidis and Entomophthora planchoniana were more sporadic in occurrence.
The image above shows the brownish, unevenly-swollen cadaver of an Entomophthora-infected Acyrthosiphon pisum: note the hyphae anchoring its underside to the leaf.
Entomophthora may also fall victim to intraguild predation. Roy et al (2008) found that whilst the native ladybird Coccinella septempunctata largely avoided fungal-infected cadavers of Acyrthosiphon pisum, the invasive ladybird Harmonia axyridis consumed them nearly as readily as uninfected aphids.
The aphid alarm pheromone (E)-β-farnesene (EBF) is one of the best examples of defence communication in the insect world. This alarm pheromone is released when aphids are attacked by predators, and induces behavioural reactions such as walking or dropping off the host plant. Kunert et al. (2005) showed that the exposure to alarm pheromone also induced aphids to give birth to winged dispersal morphs that leave their host plants. They suggested that the pheromone leads to a «pseudo crowding» effect whereby alarm pheromone perception causes increased walking behaviour in aphids resulting in an increase in the number of physical contacts between individuals, similar to what happens when aphids are crowded. Previous reports that parasitoid activity induces production of alates by Acyrthosiphon pisum (Sloggett & Weisser, 2002) may operate by the same mechanism.
Other aphids on same host:
- Blackman & Eastop list at least 20 species of aphid as feeding on pea (Pisum sativum) worldwide, and provide formal identification keys. (Show World list). Of those aphid species, Baker (2015) lists 13 as occurring in Britain: (Show British list).
Blackman & Eastop list 24 species of aphid as feeding on lucerne (alfalfa, Medicago sativa) worldwide, and provide formal identification keys (Show World list). Of those aphid species, Baker (2015) lists 17 as occurring in Britain (Show British list).
Damage & Control:
Acyrthosiphon pisum is considered one of the 14 aphid species of most agricultural importance (Blackman & Eastop, 2007). It does not form dense colonies, so direct feeding damage is limited. However, Acyrthosiphon pisum is a vector of more than 30 virus diseases of Fabaceae which can cause serious crop losses.
Small Acyrthosiphon pisum infestations can be treated by spraying with a strong jet of water. For more serious infestations insecticidal soaps or oils, such as neem or canola oil, are usually the best method of control. For commercial legumes, such as alfalfa, the emphasis is usually on habitat management to encourage natural enemies (especally Aphidius ervi and Entomophthora). Classical biological control, by release of natural enemies, has been used in the USA.
Our particular thanks to Roger Blackman for images of his clarified slide mounts.
Whilst we make every effort to ensure that identifications are correct, we cannot absolutely warranty their accuracy. We have mostly made identifications from high resolution photos of living specimens, along with host plant identity. In the great majority of cases, identifications have been confirmed by microscopic examination of preserved specimens. We have used the keys and species accounts of Blackman & Eastop (1994) and Blackman & Eastop (2006) supplemented with Blackman (1974), Stroyan (1977), Stroyan (1984), Blackman & Eastop (1984), Heie (1980-1995), Dixon & Thieme (2007) and Blackman (2010). We fully acknowledge these authors as the source for the (summarized) taxonomic information we have presented. Any errors in identification or information are ours alone, and we would be very grateful for any corrections. For assistance on the terms used for aphid morphology we suggest the figure provided by Blackman & Eastop (2006).
Balog, A. & Schmitz, O.J. (2013). Predation drives stable coexistence ratios between red and green pea aphid morphs. Journal of Evolutionary Biology26(3), 545-552. Abstract
Blackman, R.L. & Eastop, V.F. (2007). Taxonomic issues. In: Van Emden, H.F. & Harrington, R. (Ed). Aphids as crop pests. Cabi Publishing.Full text
Brisson, J.A, & Stern, D.L. (2006). The pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum: An emerging genomic model system for ecological, developmental, and evolutionary studies. BioEssays10, 747-755. Full text
Caillud, M.C. & Losey, J.E. (2010). Genetics of colour polymorphism in the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. The Journal of Insect Science10, 95.Full text
Farhoudi et al. (2014). Prey preference of Aphidoletes aphidimyza on Acyrthosiphon pisum: Effect of prey color and size. Journal of Insect Behaviour27(6), 776-785. Abstract
Gonzalez, D. et al. (1995). Pea aphid and blue alfalfa aphid. In: Nechols, J.R. (Ed), Biological Control in the Western United States. UCANR Publications.
The International Aphid Genomics Consortium (2010). Genome sequence of the pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum. PLOS Biology8(2): e4000313. Full text
Kunert, G. (2005). Alarm pheromone mediates production of winged dispersal morphs in aphids. Ecology Letters, 8(6), 596-603.Abstract
Losey, J.E. et al. (1997) A polymorphism maintained by opposite patterns of parasitism and predation. Nature388, 269-272. Abstract
Moran, N.A. & Jarvik, T. (2010). Lateral transfer of genes from fungi underlies carotenoid production in aphids. Science328 no. 5978, 624-627. Abstract
Peccoud, J. et al. (2009) A continuum of genetic divergence from sympatric host races to species in the pea aphid complex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA106(18), 7495-7500. Full text
Roy, H.E. (2008). Intraguild predation of the aphid pathogenic fungus Pandora neoaphidis by the invasive coccinellid Harmonia axyridis. Ecological Entomology33, 175-182. Full text
Sloggett, J.J. and Weisser, W.W. (2002). Parasitoids induce production of the dispersal morph of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. Oikos98: 323-333. Full text
Snyder, W.E. & Ives, A.R. (2001). Generalist predators disrupt biological control by a specialist parasitoid. Ecology82(3), 705-716. Full text
Snyder, W.E. & Ives, A.R. (2003). Interactions between specialist and generalist natural enemies: parasitoids, predators, and pea aphid biocontrol. Ecology, 84(1), 91-107. Full text
van den Bosch, R. et al. (1966). Parasitization of Acyrthosiphon pisum by Aphidius smithi, a density-dependent process in nature. (Homoptera: Aphidae) (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Ecology47, 1049-1055. Abstract
Wilding, N. (1975).Entomophthora species infecting pea aphids. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society127 (2), 171-183. Abstract
Susceptibility of forage legumes to infestation by the pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) (Hemiptera: Aphididae)
A Department of Entomology, Phytopathology and Molecular Diagnostics, University of Warmia and Mazury, Olsztyn, Poland.
B Department of Botany and Ecology, University of Zielona Góra, Zielona Góra, Poland.
C Institute of Dendrology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kórnik, Poland.
Crop and Pasture Science 69(8) 775-784 https://doi.org/10.1071/CP18065
Submitted: 18 February 2018 Accepted: 18 June 2018 Published: 20 July 2018
The small-seeded legumes are important forage crops for grazing animals and contribute nitrogen to succeeding crops in crop rotation systems. However, the susceptibility of several of the forage legumes to the specialist pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) has never been investigated. The present study on aphid probing behaviour using the Electrical Penetration Graph technique revealed that the forage legumes studied were (i) highly acceptable (common vetch Vicia sativa L.), (ii) acceptable (wooly vetch Vicia villosa Roth), (iii) moderately acceptable (fodder galega Galega orientalis Lam., crimson clover Trifolium incarnatum L., Persian clover Trifolium resupinatum L., white clover Trifolium repens L.), (iv) barely acceptable (common bird’s-foot-trefoil Lotus corniculatus L., yellow lucerne Medicago falcata L., alfalfa Medicago sativa L., sand lucerne Medicago × varia Martyn, common bird’s-foot Ornithopus sativus Brot., alsike clover Trifolium hybridum L., red clover Trifolium pratense L., common sainfoin Onobrychis viciifolia Scop.), and (v) unacceptable (white melilot Melilotus albus Medik.) to the pea aphid. On (i) plants, probing occupied 85% of experimental time, all aphids (100%) succeeded in feeding on phloem sap, phloem phase occupied 50% of probing time, sap ingestion periods were long (mean duration: 100.8 ± 28.2 min.) and engaged 97% of the phloem phase. On (ii) plants, probing occupied 73% of exp. time, feeding activity occurred in 66.7% of aphids, phloem phase occupied 30% of probing time, sap ingestion periods were long (mean duration: 115.5 ± 46.7 min) and engaged 80% of the phloem phase. On (iii) plants, probing ranged from 53% of exp. time on T. repens to 70% on T. incarnatum and T. resuspinatum, feeding occurred in 35.3% of aphids on T. resuspinatum up to 54.5% on T. incarnatum, phloem phase occupied 10% of exp. time on G. orientalis, T. incarnatum, and T. resuspinatum and 20% on T. repens, sap ingestion periods were from 9.8 ± 1.8 min. on G. orientalis to 51.9 ± 20.7 min. long on T. resuspinatum and engaged from 30% of phloem phase on G. orientalis to 80% on T. incarnatum. On (iv) plants, probing occupied 25% of exp. time on O. viciifolia up to 38% on O. sativus and T. hybridum, feeding occurred in 6.7% of aphids on T. hybridum to 28% on O. sativus, phloem phase occupied less than 1% of probing time on all plants except O. viciifolia (4%) and O. sativus (5%) and it consisted mainly of salivation. On M. albus (v), probing occupied 22% of experimental time, the probes were short (1.8 ± 0.3 min), and no aphid on M. albus showed feeding on phloem sap. M. albus can be recommended for intercropping, ‘push-pull’ strategies, or as a barrier crop against A. pisum in sustainable agricultural practices.
Additional keywords: aphid probing behaviour, EPG, plant resistance.
Alyokhin A, Sewell G (2003 ) On-soil movement and plant colonization by walking wingless morphs of three aphid species (Homoptera: Aphididae) in greenhouse arenas. Environmental Entomology 32, 1393–1398.
| On-soil movement and plant colonization by walking wingless morphs of three aphid species (Homoptera: Aphididae) in greenhouse arenas. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Ates S, Feindel D, El Moneim A, Ryan J (2014 ) Annual forage legumes in dryland agricultural systems of the West Asia and North Africa Regions: research achievements and future perspective. Grass and Forage Science 69, 2–16.
| Annual forage legumes in dryland agricultural systems of the West Asia and North Africa Regions: research achievements and future perspective. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Atienza SG, Rubiales D (2017 ) Legumes in sustainable agriculture. Crop & Pasture Science 68, i–ii.
| Legumes in sustainable agriculture. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Blackman RL, Eastop VF (1994) ‘Aphids on the world’s trees.’ (CAB International and The Natural History Museum: London)
Blackman RL, Eastop VF (2000) ‘Aphids on the world’s crops.’ (John Wiley & Sons and the Natural History Museum: London)
Blackman RL, Eastop VF (2006) ‘Aphids on the world’s herbaceous plants and shrubs.’ (John Wiley & Sons and the Natural History Museum: London)
Blackman RL, Eastop VF (2007) Taxonomic issues. In ‘Aphids as crop pests’. (Eds HF van Emden, R Harrington) pp. 1–30. (CABI: Wallingford, UK)
Brunt AA, Crabtree K, Dallwitz MJ, Gibbs AJ, Watson L, Zurcher EJ (Eds) (1996) Plant Viruses Online: Descriptions and Lists from the VIDE Database. Version: 16 January 1997. Available at: http://sdb.im.ac.cn/vide/refs.htm/ (accessed 12 February 2018).
CABI (2017) Acyrthosiphon pisum. In ‘Invasive species compendium’. (CAB International: Wallingford, UK) https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/3147#tab1-nav (accessed 11 July 2018)
Capinera JL (2008) Pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) (Hemiptera: Aphididae). In ‘Encyclopedia of entomology’. (Ed. JL Capinera) pp. 2766–2770. (Springer: Dordrecht)
Chan CK, Forbes AR, Raworth DA (1991) Aphid-transmitted viruses and their vectors of the world. Agriculture Canada Technical Bulletin 1991-3E. pp. 1–216. Available at: https://archive.org/details/aphidtransmitted19913chan (accessed 11 July 2018).
Clement SL, Husebye DS, Eigenbrode SD (2010) Ecological factors influencing pea aphid outbreaks in the US Pacific Northwest. In ‘Aphid biodiversity under environmental change’. (Eds P Kindlmann, AFG Dixon, JP Michaud) pp. 107–128. (Springer: Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York)
Dietzgen RG, Mann KS, Johnson KN (2016 ) Plant virus–insect vector interactions: current and potential future research directions. Viruses 8, 303
| Plant virus–insect vector interactions: current and potential future research directions. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Doyle JJ, Luckow MA (2003 ) The rest of the iceberg. Legume diversity and evolution in a phylogenetic context. Plant Physiology 131, 900–910.
| The rest of the iceberg. Legume diversity and evolution in a phylogenetic context. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Favret C, Miller GL (2012) AphID. Identification Technology Program, CPHST, PPQ, APHIS, USDA, Fort Collins, CO. Available at: http://AphID.AphidNet.org/ (accessed 30 July 2017).
Gabryś B, Pawluk M (1999 ) Acceptability of different species of Brassicaceae as hosts for the cabbage aphid. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 91, 105–109.
| Acceptability of different species of Brassicaceae as hosts for the cabbage aphid. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Gabrys B, Tjallingii WF (2002 ) The role of sinigrin in host plant recognition by aphids during initial plant penetration. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 104, 89–93.
| The role of sinigrin in host plant recognition by aphids during initial plant penetration. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Goławska S, Łukasik I (2009 ) Acceptance of low-saponin lines of alfalfa with varied phenolic concentrations by pea aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae). Biologia 64, 377–382.
| Acceptance of low-saponin lines of alfalfa with varied phenolic concentrations by pea aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae). Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Graham PH, Vance CP (2003 ) Legumes: Importance and constraints to greater use. Plant Physiology 131, 872–877.
| Legumes: Importance and constraints to greater use. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Grudniewska A, Dancewicz K, Białońska A, Ciunik Z, Gabryś B, Wawrzeńczyk C (2011 ) Synthesis of piperitone-derived halogenated lactones and their effect on aphid probing, feeding, and settling behavior. RSC Advances 1, 498–510.
| Synthesis of piperitone-derived halogenated lactones and their effect on aphid probing, feeding, and settling behavior. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Hill DS (1987) ‘Agricultural insect pests of temperate regions and their control.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK)
Holman J (2009) ‘Host plant catalog of aphids, Palaearctic Region.’ (Springer: The Netherlands)
Jensen ES, Peoples MB, Boddey RM, Gresshoff PM, Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Alves BJR, Morrison MJ (2012 ) Legumes for mitigation of climate change and the provision of feedstock for biofuels and biorefineries. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32, 329–364.
| Legumes for mitigation of climate change and the provision of feedstock for biofuels and biorefineries. A review. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Katis NI, Tsitsipis JA, Stevens M, Powel G (2007) Transmission of plant viruses. In ‘Aphids as crop pests’. (Eds HF van Emden, R Harrington) pp. 353–390. (CABI: Wallingford, UK)
Kordan B, Dancewicz K, Wróblewska A, Gabryś B (2012 ) Intraspecific variation in alkaloid profile of four lupine species with implications for the pea aphid probing behaviour. Phytochemistry Letters 5, 71–77.
| Intraspecific variation in alkaloid profile of four lupine species with implications for the pea aphid probing behaviour. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Lüscher A, Mueller-Harvey I, Soussana JF, Rees RM, Peyraud JL (2014 ) Potential of legume-based grassland–livestock systems in Europe: a review. Grass and Forage Science 69, 206–228.
| Potential of legume-based grassland–livestock systems in Europe: a review. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Marchetti E, Civolani S, Leis M, Chicca M, Tjallingii WF, Pasqualini E, Baronio P (2009 ) Tissue location of resistance in apple to the rosy apple aphid established by electrical penetration graphs. Bulletin of Insectology 62, 203–208.
Martin B, Collar JL, Tjallingi WF, Fereres A (1997 ) Intracellular ingestion and salivation by aphids may cause the acquisition and inoculation of non-persistently transmitted plant viruses. The Journal of General Virology 78, 2701–2705.
| Intracellular ingestion and salivation by aphids may cause the acquisition and inoculation of non-persistently transmitted plant viruses. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
McCartney D, Fraser J (2010 ) The potential role of annual forage legumes in Canada: A review. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 90, 403–420.
| The potential role of annual forage legumes in Canada: A review. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Montllor CB, Tjallingii WF (1989 ) Stylet penetration by two aphid species on susceptible and resistant lettuce. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 52, 103–111.
| Stylet penetration by two aphid species on susceptible and resistant lettuce. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Ng JC, Falk BW (2006 ) Virus-vector interactions mediating nonpersistent and semipersistent transmission of plant viruses. Annual Review of Phytopathology 44, 183–212.
| Virus-vector interactions mediating nonpersistent and semipersistent transmission of plant viruses. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Pettersson J, Tjallingii WF, Hardie J (2007) Host-plant selection and feeding. In ‘Aphids as crop pests’. (Eds HF van Emden, R Harrington) pp. 87–113. (CABI: Wallingford, UK)
Powell G (2005 ) Intracellular salivation is the aphid activity associated with inoculation of non-persistently transmitted viruses. The Journal of General Virology 86, 469–472.
| Intracellular salivation is the aphid activity associated with inoculation of non-persistently transmitted viruses. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Powell G, Tosh CR, Hardie J (2006 ) Host plant selection by aphids: behavioral, evolutionary, and applied perspectives. Annual Review of Entomology 51, 309–330.
| Host plant selection by aphids: behavioral, evolutionary, and applied perspectives. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Prado E, Tjallingii WF (1994 ) Aphid activities during sieve element punctures. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 72, 157–165.
| Aphid activities during sieve element punctures. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Schwarzkopf A, Rosenberger D, Niebergall M, Gershenzon J, Kunert G (2013 ) To feed or not to feed: plant factors located in the epidermis, mesophyll, and sieve elements influence pea aphid’s ability to feed on legume species. PLoS One 8, e75298
| To feed or not to feed: plant factors located in the epidermis, mesophyll, and sieve elements influence pea aphid’s ability to feed on legume species. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Simpson MG (2010) ‘Plant systematics.’ (Elsevier: Amsterdam)
Smýkal P, Coyne CJ, Ambrose MJ, Maxted N, Schaefer H, Blair MW, Berger J, Greene SL, Nelson MN, Besharat N, Vymyslický T, Toker C, Saxena RK, Roorkiwal M, Pandey MK, Hu J, Li YH, Wang LX, Guo Y, Qiu LJ, Redden RJ, Varshney RK (2015 ) Legume crops phylogeny and genetic diversity for science and breeding. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 34, 43–104.
| Legume crops phylogeny and genetic diversity for science and breeding. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Stagnari F, Maggio A, Galieni A, Pisante M (2017 ) Multiple benefits of legumes for agriculture sustainability: an overview. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture 4, 2
| Multiple benefits of legumes for agriculture sustainability: an overview. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Steinshamn H (2010 ) Effect of forage legumes on feed intake, milk production and milk quality – a review. Animal Science Papers and Reports 28, 195–206.
Tjallingii WF (1994 ) Sieve element acceptance by aphids. European Journal of Entomology 91, 47–52.
Tjallingii WF (1995) Regulation of phloem sap feeding by aphids. In ‘Regulatory mechanisms in insect feeding’. (Eds RF Chapman, G de Boer) pp. 190–209. (Chapman & Hall: New York)
Tjallingii WF (2006 ) Salivary secretions by aphids interacting with proteins of phloem wound responses. Journal of Experimental Botany 57, 739–745.
| Salivary secretions by aphids interacting with proteins of phloem wound responses. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Tjallingii WF, Hogen Esch T (1993 ) Fine structure of aphid stylet routes in plant tissues in correlation with EPG signals. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 18, 317–328.
Tjallingii WF, Mayoral A (1992) Criteria for host-plant acceptance by aphids. In ‘Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Insect-Plant Relationships. Series Entomologica, vol. 49’. (Eds SBJ Menken, JH Visser, P Harrewijn) pp. 280–282. (Springer: Dordrecht)
Tosh CR, Powell G, Hardie J (2003 ) Decision making by generalist and specialist aphids with the same genotype. Journal of Insect Physiology 49, 659–669.
| Decision making by generalist and specialist aphids with the same genotype. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
van Hoof HA (1958) An investigation of the biological transmission of a nonpersistent virus. PhD Thesis, The University of Wageningen, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Wale M, Jembere B, Seyoum E (2003 ) Occurrence of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) (Homoptera: Aphididae) on wild leguminous plants in West Gojam, Ethiopia. Sinet. An Ethiopian Journal of Science 26, 83–87.
Will T, Tjallingii WF, Thonnessen A, van Bel AJ (2007 ) Molecular sabotage of plant defense by aphid saliva. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104, 10536–10541.
| Molecular sabotage of plant defense by aphid saliva. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |
Wojciechowski MF, Mahn J, Jones B (2006) Fabaceae. Legumes. Version 14 June 2006. Available at: http://tolweb.org/Fabaceae/21093/2006.06.14 in The Tree of Life Web Project. http://tolweb.org/ (accessed 31 July 2017).
Woźniak A, Formela M, Bilman P, Grześkiewicz K, Bednarski W, Marczak Ł, Narożna D, Dancewicz K, Mai VC, Borowiak-Sobkowiak B, Floryszak-Wieczorek J, Gabryś B, Morkunas I (2017 ) The dynamics of the defense strategy of pea induced by exogenous nitric oxide in response to aphid infestation. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 18, 329
| The dynamics of the defense strategy of pea induced by exogenous nitric oxide in response to aphid infestation. Crossref | GoogleScholar Google Scholar |