Insect Resistance In Crop Plants Research Articles

Recent history and future trends in host–plant resistance

Abstract Host–plant resistance (HPR) is a subdiscipline in entomology that aims to understand, develop, and deploy crop varieties resistant to arthropod herbivores. The seminal figure in HPR was Reginald Painter, whose 1951 monograph Insect Resistance in Crop Plants established a conceptual framework and methodological approach for applied research on plant resistance. In the 75 years since the publication of this book, the empirical and multidisciplinary approach established by Painter has led to the development and use of hundreds of arthropod-resistant crop varieties. Much of the success of HPR research has been, and will continue to be, tied to advances in scientific disciplines related to HPR, such as plant breeding and genetics, analytical chemistry, and plant–insect interactions. However, given the challenges facing agriculture and pest management over the coming decades, increased attention will need to be given to the deployment of resistant varieties and the integration of resistant varieties into integrated pest management (IPM) programs. Recent advances in our understanding of fundamental aspects of the interactions between plants and herbivores provide insights that can facilitate the increased use of plant resistance in IPM programs, and the diverse membership of the Entomological Society of America can play a critical role by increasing communication between scientists interested in applied and fundamental aspects of plant resistance to insects.

RNA silencing of hormonal biosynthetic genes impairs larval growth and development in cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera

The cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera, is a highly polyphagous pest, causing enormous losses to various economically important crops. The identification and in vitro functional validation of target genes of a pest is a prerequisite to combat pest via host-mediated RNA interference (RNAi). In the present study, six hormonal biosynthesis genes of H. armigera were chosen and evaluated by feeding insect larvae with dsRNAs corresponding to each target gene, viz., juvenile hormone acid methyltransferase (HaJHAMT), prothoracicotropic hormone (HaPTTH), pheromone biosynthesis-activating peptide (HaPBAP), molt regulating transcription factor (HaHR3), activated protein 4 (HaAP-4) and eclosion hormone precursor (HaEHP). The loss of function phenotypes for these hormonal genes were observed by releasing second instar larvae on to artificial diet containing target gene-specific dsRNAs. Ingestion of dsRNAs resulted in mortality ranging from 60% to 90%, reduced larval weight, phenotypic deformities and delayed pupation. The quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) analysis showed that the target gene transcript levels were decreased drastically (31% to 77%) as compared to control or unrelated control (GFP-dsRNA), and correlated well with the mortality and developmental defects of larvae. Also, a comparison of the silencing efficacy of un-diced long HaPTTH -dsRNAwith RNase III diced HaPTTH-dsRNA (siRNAs) revealed that long dsRNAs were more efficient in silencing the target gene. These results indicated that the hormonal biosynthesis genes have varied sensitivity towards RNAi and could be the vital targets for insect resistance in crop plants like cotton which are infested by H. armigera.

Over-expression of the Pseudomonas syringae harpin-encoding gene hrpZm confers enhanced tolerance to Phytophthora root and stem rot in transgenic soybean.

Phytophthora root and stem rot (PRR) caused by Phytophthora sojae is one of the most devastating diseasesreducing soybean (Glycine max) production all over the world. Harpin proteins in many plant pathogenic bacteria were confirmed to enhance disease and insect resistance in crop plants. Here, a harpin protein-encoding gene hrpZpsta from the P. syringae pv. tabaci strain Psta218 was codon-optimized (renamed hrpZm) and introduced into soybean cultivars Williams 82 and Shennong 9 by Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. Three independent transgenic lines over-expressing hrpZm were obtained and exhibited stable and enhanced tolerance to P. sojae infection in T2-T4 generations compared to the non-transformed (NT) and empty vector (EV)-transformed plants. Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) analysis revealed that the expression of salicylic acid-dependent genes PR1, PR12, and PAL, jasmonic acid-dependent gene PPO, and hypersensitive response (HR)-related genes GmNPR1 and RAR was significantly up-regulated after P. sojae inoculation. Moreover, the activities of defense-related enzymes such as phenylalanine ammonia lyase (PAL), polyphenoloxidase (PPO), peroxidase, and superoxide dismutase also increased significantly in the transgenic lines compared to the NT and EV-transformed plants after inoculation. Our results suggest that over-expression of the hrpZm gene significantly enhances PRR tolerance in soybean by eliciting resistance responses mediated by multiple defense signaling pathways, thus providing an alternative approach for development of soybean varieties with improved tolerance against the soil-borne pathogen PRR.

Reevaluating the conceptual framework for applied research on host‐plant resistance

Applied research on host-plant resistance to arthropod pests has been guided over the past 60 years by a framework originally developed by Reginald Painter in his 1951 book, Insect Resistance in Crop Plants. Painter divided the "phenomena" of resistance into three "mechanisms," nonpreference (later renamed antixenosis), antibiosis, and tolerance. The weaknesses of this framework are discussed. In particular, this trichotomous framework does not encompass all known mechanisms of resistance, and the antixenosis and antibiosis categories are ambiguous and inseparable in practice. These features have perhaps led to a simplistic approach to understanding arthropod resistance in crop plants. A dichotomous scheme is proposed as a replacement, with a major division between resistance (plant traits that limit injury to the plant) and tolerance (plant traits that reduce amount of yield loss per unit injury), and the resistance category subdivided into constitutive/inducible and direct/indirect subcategories. The most important benefits of adopting this dichotomous scheme are to more closely align the basic and applied literatures on plant resistance and to encourage a more mechanistic approach to studying plant resistance in crop plants. A more mechanistic approach will be needed to develop novel approaches for integrating plant resistance into pest management programs.

Multiple insect resistance in transgenic tomato plants over-expressing two families of plant proteinase inhibitors

Protease inhibitors have been proposed as potential defense molecules for increased insect resistance in crop plants. Compensatory over-production of insensitive proteases in the insect, however, has limited suitability of these proteins in plant protection, with very high levels of inhibitor required for increased plant resistance. In this study we have examined whether combined used of two inhibitors is effective to prevent this compensatory response. We show that leaf-specific over-expression of the potato PI-II and carboxypeptidase inhibitors (PCI) results in increased resistance to Heliothis obsoleta and Liriomyza trifolii larvae in homozygote tomato lines expressing high levels (>1% the total soluble proteins) of the transgenes. Leaf damage in hemizygous lines for these transformants was, however, more severe than in the controls, thus evidencing a compensation response of the larvae to the lower PI concentrations in these plants. Development of comparable adaptive responses in both insects suggests that insect adaptation does not entail specific recognition of the transgene, but rather represents a general adaptive mechanism triggered in response to the nutritional stress imposed by sub-lethal concentrations of the inhibitors. Combined expression of defense genes with different mechanisms of action rather than combinations of inhibitors may then offer a better strategy in pest management as it should be more effective in overcoming this general adaptive response in the insect.

Aspects of insect resistance in crop plants

Importance of growing insect resistant crop in pest management programmes is discussed with reference to some of the major aspects of insect resistance in crop plants in Tamil Nadu and emphasis has been made in highlighting the fact that the plant resistance to insect should form the foundation upon which other components of the integrated pest management should be built.

Antixenosis-A New Term Proposed to Define Painter's "Nonpreference" Modality of Resistance

Much of the wide acceptance and popularity of Reginald Painter's classification of the mechanisms of plant resistance to insect pests stems not only from its simplicity and apparent generality, but also because it accurately describes insect and plant responses. Based on some of his own previous work (Painter 1936, 1941), Painter in his classical book “Insect Resistance in Crop Plants” (1951) proposed that plant resistance, as observed in the field, could be explained by three fundamental mechanisms which he named: (a) nonpreference, (b) antibiosis, and (c) tolerance. Painter and many subsequent workers have stressed the fact that these mechanisms are most frequently interrelated although they may also operate independently.

Insect Resistance in Crop Plants

Insect Resistance in Crop Plants

Resistance of Castor to Lepidopterous Insects with Reference to the Effect of Food Plant of Achoea janata Guen, on its Braconid Parasite, Microplitis Ophiusae R.

Considerable progress has been made in the recent past in the study of insect resistance in crop plants, and varieties resistant to pests have been evolved. Castor is subjected to the severe attack by many insect pests particularly the semilooper, Achoea janata L., and the shoot and capsule borer, Dichocrocis punctiferalis Guen. year after year in several parts of the country. Even though effective chemical method of control is available against many of these pests, the importance of evolution of pest-resistant varieties is increasingly felt in recent years. Castor has been studied by different authors for its resistance to many pests. Detailed investigations in screening large number of castor varieties for resistance to the jassid Empoasca flavescens (F) were undertaken by Jayaraj (1966-a, 1967-a). Preliminary observations were made on their resistance to the shoot and capsule borer Dichocrosis punctiferalis Guen. (Basu 1947, David et al 1964, Sulochanabai et al 1968), the European corn borer Ostrinia nubilalis (Hubn.) (Kittock and Williams 1963), the whitefly Trialeurodes ricini Misra (David and Radha 1964), and the red spider mite Tetranychus telarius (L) (Chandrasekharan et al 1964). The information available on castor resistance to the caterpillar pests, particularly the foliage feeders, is very meagre and hence detailed screening of several varieties for resistance to nine leaf-eating caterpillar pests and the shoot and capsule borer was undertaken in two seasons (1962-1964) and the results are presented in this paper. Attempts have been made to understand the possible mechanism of resistance in the case of two major pests viz., A. janata and D. punctiferalis and also to understand the effect of food plant of A. janata on the braconid parasite Microplitis ophiusae R.

REVIEWS

Book reviewed in this article: Back‐Crossing. By Mary Thomas. The Principles of Line Illustration. By L. N. Staniland. Medical Mycology: an Introduction to its Problems. By G. C. Ainsworth. Poplars. By T. R. Peace. Statistical Method in Biological Assay. By D. J. Finney. Insect Resistance in Crop Plants. By Reginald H. Painter.

Insect Resistance in Crop Plants

Insect Resistance in Crop Plants

Book Notice

Journal Article Book Notice Get access INSECT RESISTANCE IN CROP PLANTS, by Painter Reginald H.. The Macmillan Company, New York, 1951. 8¼×5½ inches. xii+520 pp. 67 figures. $8.50. Journal of Economic Entomology, Volume 45, Issue 1, 1 February 1952, Page 201, https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/45.1.201a Published: 01 February 1952

Insect Resistance in Crop Plants

Agronomy JournalVolume 43, Issue 12 p. 638-638 Book Review Insect Resistance in Crop Plants By Reginald H. Painter. New York: The Macmillan Company. 520 pages (illus.). 1951., $8.50 R. J. Garber, R. J. GarberSearch for more papers by this author R. J. Garber, R. J. GarberSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 December 1951 https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1951.00021962004300120016xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume43, Issue12December 1951Pages 638-638 RelatedInformation

Insect Resistance in Crop Plants

Insect Resistance in Crop Plants

The Food of Insects and its Relation to Resistance of Plants to Insect Attack

A STUDY of the resistance of crop plants to insect attack has served to emphasize the great importance of food habits in the biology and evolution of plant-feeding insects. The evidence is accumulating that two plants, identical outwardly, may differ widely in nutritive value to an insect species as measured by the insect's ability to maintain a population on them. Resistance of plants to insect attack may be defined as the relative amount of qualities possessed by the plant which influence the ultimate degree of damage done. For practical purposes it represents the ability of a crop plant to produce a larger crop than do ordinary varieties at the same level of insect population. This difference in yield is a measure of the economic value of resistance, but is, however, dependent on many factors as well as resistance to insects. It should be the purpose of projects on insect resistance in crop plants to produce varieties not only as good or better in respect to agronomic characters and disease resistance than those now available, but also resistant to one or more insects. Thus the breeding of crop plants resistant to insect attack becomes part of the entomologist's contribution to the crop improvement program of a particular crop and, conversely, insect resistance should