Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Watering took place every other day ~lith tap water to keep the soil near <br />field capacity. Sunlight was not supplemented by artificial light. Plants <br />were observed frequently and notes were made of their foliage color and th'2 <br />attributes of conditions. <br /> <br />Greenbug infestations developed from a residual greenhouse population; no <br />attempt was made to poison them anywhere in the greenhouse during the <br />experiment. Greenbug counts were made on 7 March, 10 March, 12 April, and 21 <br />April 1982. When counting together, each person counted all treatments of <br />particular replicates. Additional observations were then made of plant <br />condition and the proportions of young and winged greenbugs. <br /> <br />Plant osmotic potential was measured by pressure-bomb techniques <br />(Scholander et al., 1965) on one culm from each treatment of replicates 2 and 3 <br />immediately after the 10 March greenbug count. Both of these replicates were <br />selected randomly. <br /> <br />Results and Discussion <br /> <br />Greenbug densities by treatment, replicate and date are listed in Table 1. <br />During the 7 and 10 March counts, greenbug density was negatively related to <br />plant density with slopes (r2), respectively, of -3.09 (0.83) and -3.69 <br />(0.88). These significant relationships were not repeated a month later when, <br />apparently because of plant maturation, the greenbugs were nearly absent from <br />all treatments (Table 1). <br /> <br />The insects could have been responding to several different plant-density <br />controlled factors: lighting, temperature, plant osmotic pressure, and plant <br />nutrient levels (Windle and Franz, 1979). We reject the possibility of the <br />first two because variation in either factor would have been negligible <br />considering that the plants were short (all less than Idm) and the prevailing <br />greenhouse conditions were always moderate with air movement over the bench <br />(Wyatt and Brown, 1977). <br /> <br />Results of our investigation into wheat osmotic pressure-aphid density <br />levels are given in Table 2. Both replicates 2 and 3 showed significant linear <br />relationships of aphid density to osmotic pressure. As has been shown by <br />others (e.g., Dixon, 1975) these aphids were more abundant on plants of higher <br />water status. Our counts, though, showed no differences in proportion of <br />young, nonwinged/wingless forms due to treatment. The increased aphid density <br />with higher plant water status (lower density) is probably due to a combination <br />of factors, including water movement, photosynthetic rate, and solute <br />concentration, which are enhanced by an increased osmotic pressure. This <br />results in more food to the greenbugs. Because we observed greater levels of <br />chlorosis on more dense wheat plantings, indicative of nutrient deficiencies, <br />we are unable to exclude the possibility that the greenbugs were most dense on <br />the least dense wheat plantings due to a greater nutrient concentration in <br />those plants (Wearing and van Emden, 1967). The greenbugs may have caused some <br />of the wheat leaf yellowing (Osborne, 1972). <br />Regardless of the particular influence on the aphids, plant osmotic <br />pressure and nutrient concentration are positively correlated (Hsiao, 1973), <br />except when plants have been moderately water stressed and then rewet (Van <br /> <br />56 <br />