Geometric relationships between whitefly feeding behavior and vascular bundle arrangements

Abstract

AbstractThis study revealed strong evidence that nymphs of the silverleaf whitefly, Bemisia argentifolii Bellows and Perring, are obligate feeders on vascular bundles and that there are large differences between different host plants as to the availability of vascular bundles to silverleaf whitefly nymphs. The relationship between nymphs and leaf vascular bundles was studied using 1) leaf sectioning and 2) techniques of leaf clearing of intact leaves. A geometric model is presented of the feeding relationship of vascular bundle‐using homopterans. The relative abundance of vascular bundles was examined in six species of host plants that varied from highly preferred to tolerably acceptable. Included in order of acceptance were cantaloupe, cotton, hibiscus, broccoli, lantana and lettuce. The length of vascular bundle per 1.0 mm2 of leaf surface ranged from about 10 mm in cantaloupe to 2.8 mm in lettuce. Salivary sheaths were found to connect with vascular bundles in 100% of the intact nymphs examined by the staining and clearing technique. However only 64% of those examined by the sectioning technique appeared to be connected to vascular bundles. This indicates that the sectioning technique leads to a high rate of error, causing an underestimation of the importance of direct contact with vascular bundles. About 50% of epidermal stylet penetrations were through epidermal cells; the remaining 50% went through intercellular junctions. On cotton leaves, the distance between the point of labial contact with the leaf surface and the nearest point of the vascular bundle rarely exceeded 60 μm. Our studies show that while 50% of lettuce leaf‐surface was beyond 60 μm of a vascular bundle, only 10% of cantaloupe leaf surface area was outside of the 60 μm range. In cotton, mean distance from labium to the nearest point of the vascular bundle was 40.9 μm (SEM = 2.66, N = 50, range 0–80 μm). Over 98% of all salivary sheaths went to minor veins (78% to single‐filament vascular bundles, nearly 20% to double filament bundles). Fewer than 2% went to bundles with 3 or more filaments.