Aphid-injection experiments with carrot mottle virus and its helper virus, carrot red leaf

Carrot mottle virus (CMotV) and its helper virus, carrot red leaf (CRLV), were not transmitted by aphids (Cavariella aegopodii) that had fed through membranes on, or had been injected with, sap from mixedly infected chervil plants or partially purified preparations of CMotV. However, the viruses were transmitted by recipient aphids injected with haemolymph from donor aphids that had fed on mixedly infected plants but not by a second series of recipients injected with haemolymph from the first series. Some of the first series of recipients transmitted both viruses for up to 11 days but others transmitted erratically and many lost ability to transmit after a few days. The results confirm that both viruses are circulative but provide no evidence for multiplication in the vector. Non-viruliferous aphids, or aphids that had acquired CRLV by feeding, did not transmit CMotV when they were injected with haemolymph from aphids that had fed on a source of CMotV alone, confirming that they can only transmit CMotV when they acquire it from a mixedly infected plant. When extracts from donor aphids were treated with ether before injection, recipient aphids transmitted both CRLV and CMotV, although the infectivity of CMotV grown in Nicotiana clevelandii in the absence of CRLV is destroyed by ether treatment. CMotV particles acquired by aphids from mixedly infected plants therefore differed in some way from those in singly infected plants. A plausible explanation of these results, and of the dependence of CMotV on CRLV for aphid transmission, is that doubly infected plants contain some particles that consist of CMotV nucleic acid coated with CRLV protein.     

Further evidence on the nature of the dependence of carrot mottle virus on carrot red leaf virus for transmission by aphids

Preparations were made from chervil plants doubly infected with carrot mottle virus (CMotV) and its helper virus, carrot red leaf (CRLV), on which it depends for transmission by the aphid Cavariella aegopodii, by the procedure developed previously for CRLV. The preparations contained 25 nm isometric particles which were indistinguishable from those of CRLV but possessed aphid-transmissible infectivity of both viruses and manually transmissible infectivity of CMotV. Only one sedimenting and buoyant density component was detected. The manually transmissible CMotV infectivity was resistant to freezing and to organic solvents, treatments that destroyed the CMotV infectivity in extracts from singly infected plants. The aphid-transmissible CMotV infectivity in preparations from CRLV/ CMotV-infected plants, and that in extracts from CRLV/CMotV-carrying C. aegopodii, was abolished by treatment with CRLV antiserum but not with normal serum. These results show that transmission of CMotV by C. aegopodii is dependent on the packaging of its RNA in coats composed partially or entirely of CRLV particle protein. The aphid Myzus persicae does not transmit CRLV or CMotV from plants mixedly or singly infected with these viruses but it is a vector of beet western yellows virus (BWYV) and potato leafroll virus (PLRV) and it transmitted CMotV from plants that also contained either of these viruses. This suggests that the coat proteins of BWYV and PLRV can substitute for that of CRLV in packaging CMotV nucleic acid and thereby confer on it their own vector specificities.     

Relations of the semi-persistent viruses, parsnip yellow fleck and anthriscus yellows, with their vector, Cav arietta aegopodii

Studies were made of the relations of parsnip yellow fleck virus (PYFV) and its helper virus, anthriscus yellows (AYV), with their aphid vector, Cavariella aegopodii. Apterous insects were more efficient vectors than alates; apterous nymphs were as efficient as apterous adults. C. aegopodii never transmitted PYFV in the absence of AYV, but aphids carrying both viruses infected some test plants with one or other virus alone. C. aegopodii that fed first on a source of AYV and then on a source of PYFV transmitted both viruses to test plants, but aphids that fed on the sources in the reverse order transmitted only AYV. Test plants receiving some aphids from a source of AYV, and others from a source of PYFV, became infected only with AYV. C. aegopodii acquired AYV or the AYV/PYFV complex from plants in a minimum acquisition access time (AAT) of 10–15 mm and inoculated the viruses to test plants in a minimum inoculation access time (IAT) of 2 min. Increasing either AAT or IAT, or both, to 1 h or longer increased the frequency of transmission of each virus. Starving the insects before the acquisition feed on AYV or AYV/PFYV sources did not affect transmission. Aphids already carrying AYV acquired PYFV from plants in a minimum AAT of only 2 min; they acquired and inoculated PYFV in a minimum total time of 12 min. The data suggest that AYV is confined to deeply lying tissues whereas PYFV is distributed throughout the leaf. C. aegopodii transmitted both PYFV and AYV in a semi-persistent manner: the aphids retained both viruses for up to 4 days but lost them on moulting. Neither virus was passed to progeny of viruliferous adults. Earlier results suggesting that AYV is a persistent virus may have been caused by contamination of the AYV culture with carrot red leaf virus.     

The isolation and identification of parsley viruses occurring in Britain*

Severe stunting of parsley plants, with leaf chlorosis and reddening was reported from four localities in Britain in 1968-70. Affected plants were collected from thirteen sites in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Cheshire and Bristol, and five viruses (designated PV1-PV5) were isolated from them. The viruses were distinguished by electron microscopy, host range and type of aphid transmission. From diagnostic reactions in a range of host species and its transmission by Cavariella aegopodii Scop., the most frequently isolated virus (PV4) and the principal cause of the parsley disease was identified as carrot mottle virus (CMotV). The other four viruses were infrequently isolated. PV1, PV2 and PV3 were transmitted in the non-persistent manner by Myzus persicae Sulz. Each was purified and identified serologically as western celery mosaic virus, cucumber mosaic virus and broad bean wilt respectively. PV5 was not fully identified, but was transmitted by C. aegopodii in the presence of CMotV and had particles ca. 500 nm in length. Each of these viruses was re-transmitted to parsley, but induced slight symptoms or none.     

The role of the helper virus, anthriscus yellows, in the transmission of parsnip yellow fleck virus by the aphid Cavariella aegopodii

Transmission of parsnip yellow fleck virus (PYFV) by the aphid Cavariella aegopodii occurs only when the aphids are also carrying the helper virus, anthriscus yellows (AYV). None of five other viruses tested was able to act as helper. In experiments in which aphids were allowed to feed through membranes on crude or treated extracts from infected plants, aphids already carrying AYV acquired PYFV, but virus-free aphids failed to acquire either AYV or PYFV. PYFV was not transmitted by insects injected with haemolymph from aphids carrying both viruses, or with purified preparations of PYFV. PYFV was transmitted when AYV-carrying aphids, except those whose stylets had been removed, were contaminated externally with PYFV preparations. Ultraviolet irradiation of infected leaves did not prevent aphids from acquiring AYV, presumably because it is confined to deeply-lying tissues. AYV-carrying aphids could acquire PYFV from u.v.-irradiated leaves after acquisition access times of 2 h but not after feeds of only 2 or 15 min (which are adequate on unirradiated leaves), suggesting that PYFV is present in all parts of the leaf. No ‘helper agent’ distinct from AYV itself was detected in these experiments or in experiments on minimum acquisition feeding time or maximum period of persistence in the aphid. U.v.-inactivated PYFV competed with infective PYFV for retention sites in AYV-carrying aphids, whereas AYV apparently did not. It is suggested that there is no helper agent for PYFV, other than AYV particles. The possibility that there is one for AYV is not excluded.     

Vectoring ability of aphid clones of Rhopalosiphum padi (L.) and Sitobion avenae (Fabr.) and their capacity to retain barley yellow dwarf virus

Vectoring ability of four aphid clones, Rp-M and Rp-R26 of Rhopalosiphum padi and Sa-R1 and Sa-V of Sitobion avenae, to transmit barley yellow dwarf (PAV, MAV and RPV) luteoviruses (BYDV) was compared in controlled conditions. Significant differences between highly efficient vectors (HEV), Rp-M and Sa-Rl, and poorly efficient vectors (PEV), Rp-R26 and Sa-V, were found in transmission of their specific viruses with acquisition and inoculation access periods (AAP, IAP) of 5 days. BYD-RPV was occasionally transmitted by both clones of S. avenae. None of 150 tested apterous adults of the Rp-R26 transmitted BYD-MAV, while 10% of transmission was observed from those of the Rp-M in a parallel test. An improved ELISA and immuno-PCR were adapted to test for viruses in aphids. The results obtained by the improved ELISA indicated there was a good correlation between virus detection in single aphids of HEV clones after a 5 day AAP and virus transmission by them. In contrast, the percentages of virus-carrying aphids of PEV clones were generally higher than those of their transmission rates. BYD-MAV and BYD-RPV were also detected by the improved ELISA in single aphids of their PEV clones, with the exception of BYD-RPV in those of Sa-V. However, after a 2-day IAP, the improved ELISA in most cases failed to detect these viruses in single aphids of PEV clones. Detection by immuno-PCR demonstrated that all three viruses could be acquired and retained by the aphids of both HEV and PEV clones. But, as visualised from electrophoretic bands, after the 2-day IAP the amplified products from aphid extracts of PEV clones were reduced. The detection in a batch of nine aphids by the improved ELISA revealed that virus content in PEV clones decreased more rapidly than that in HEV clones during transmission. Thus, the difference in transmission efficiency of the aphid clones within species was not caused by an inability to acquire virus, but was determined by variation in vectoring ability between them. This was due to differences in ability to prevent the passage of virions from haemocoel to salivary duct and/or different capacities for the retention of BYDV.     

Cytopathology, Mode of Aphid Transmission and Search for the Casual Agent of Cotton Bunchy Top Disease

The cytopathological effects of cotton bunchy top (CBT) disease and its mode of transmission by Aphis gossypii Glover (cotton aphid), were studied. CBT infection affected the leaf epidermal layer producing a loose, ruptured and rough surface morphology with many stomata closed and misshapen. Roots of CBT‐infected plants showed reduced growth, small knots and a dark brown appearance. A single aphid per plant was capable of transmitting CBT at 5%, whereas three aphids per plant transmitted CBT to 50% of the cotton seedlings and 20 aphids per plant transmitted the disease agent to 80% of the cotton seedlings. Aphis gossypii acquired CBT after a minimum acquisition access period of 5 min and transmitted the agent after a minimum inoculation access period of 1 h. Both alate and apterous aphids and nymph instars 2, 3 and 4 of A. gossypii transmitted CBT. This preliminary data suggest that A. gossypii transmits CBT in a semi‐persistent manner. Myzus persicae Sulz (green peach aphid) was unable to transmit CBT. A comprehensive attempt to isolate the CBT agent, using a range of virological techniques including double‐stranded RNA extraction, two‐dimensional gel electrophoresis for viroid, circular DNA test, nanovirus polymerase chain reaction (PCR), luteovirus PCR and enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay, phytoplasma test, nucleoprotein purification and electron microscopy, was unsuccessful, raising the possibility that CBT may be caused by a unique new pathogen.     

Aphid Vectors of Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus in West-Central Morocco

The ability of seven aphid species, collected in west-central Morocco, to transmit barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV) was determined. Aphids were either collected from grasses showing symptoms of BYDV infection or were allowed acquisition access to plants infected with a PAV-like isolate of BYDV before transfer to oat test plants. BYDV transmission by six of the seven aphid species was confirmed by ELISA test; only Melanaphis donacis failed to transmit. The six newly defined BYDV vector species brings the total known to occur in Morocco to ten.     

Blockage of stylet tips as the mechanism of resistance to virus transmission by Aphis gossypii in melon lines bearing the Vat gene

Aphis gossypii is the main virus vector in muskmelon crops. The melon gene Vat confers resistance to non‐persistent virus transmission by this aphid. The mechanism of this resistance is not well understood, but no relationship has been detected between resistance and the probing behaviour of aphids on resistant plants. Results presented here suggest that temporary blockage of aphid stylet tips preventing virus particle release may explain the resistance conferred by Vat gene. We performed experiments in which viruliferous aphids were allowed to probe different sequences of resistant (Vat‐bearing) and/or susceptible melon plants. The results demonstrated that A. gossypii inoculates Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) efficiently in susceptible plants having previously probed resistant plants, showing that the resistance mechanism is reversible. Furthermore, the infection rate obtained for susceptible plants was the same (25%) regardless of whether the transmitting aphid had come directly from the CMV source or had subsequently probed on resistant plants. This result suggests that virus is not lost from stylet to plant during probing of resistant plants, supporting the temporary blockage hypothesis. We also found that the ability of Myzus persicae to transmit CMV is noticeably reduced after probing on resistant plants, providing evidence that this aphid species also responds to the presence of the Vat gene. Finally, we also found that in probes immediately after virus acquisition M. persicae inoculates resistant plants with CMV more efficiently than susceptible plants, perhaps because the Vat gene product induces increased salivation by this aphid.     

Studies on the transmission of velvet tobacco mottle virus by the mirid, Cyrtopeltis nicotianae

The minimum acquisition period of velvet tobacco mottle virus (VTMoV) by its mirid vector Cyrtopeltis nicotianae was about 1 min, with an increase in the rate of transmission (i.e. proportion of test plants infected) for acquisition periods up to 1000 min. Pre-acquisition starvation periods up to 18 h did not affect the rate of transmission. After an acquisition access period of 2 days, the minimum inoculation period was between 1 and 2 h and the rate of transmission increased with increasing inoculation time; when the acquisition access period was 1 h, or if vectors were fasted for 16 h after the 2 day acquisition, the rate of transmission was significantly lower. When mirids were transferred sequentially each day to a healthy plant after a 24 h acquisition feed, they transmitted intermittently for up to 10 days. Up to 50% of mirids transmitted after a moult and this was not due to the mirids probing the shed cuticles or exudates of infective insects. Mirids transmitted after a moult, following acquisition periods of 10, 100 or 1000 min. C. nicotianae transmitted solanum nodiflorum mottle virus (SNMV), sowbane mosaic virus (SoMV) and southern bean mosaic virus (SBMV), but not subterranean clover mottle virus (SCMoV), lucerne transient streak virus (LTSV), tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV), galinsoga mosaic virus (GMV), nor nicotiana velutina mosaic virus (NVMV). Tomato bushy stunt virus (TBSV) was transmitted to 1/58 test plants.     

Transmission of carrot mosaic virus by aphids

The transmission of the carrot mosaic virus (CMV) by the aphidsAcyrtJiosiphon pisum HARRÍS,Cavariela aegopodii SCOP, andMyzus persicae SULZ was proved experimentally. It was observed simultaneously that CMV has a non-persistent character. CMV can be transmitted already 2 min after acquisition feeding by the aphidsMyzus persicae SDLZ andCavariella aego-podii Scop. When the time of acquisition feeding is prolonged to 4 min, CMV is transmitted also by aphidAcyrthosiphon pisum HAREÍs. The host range of the investigated virus wasalso determined and its transmission to 8 plant species, belonging to 4 families, was achieved. On the basis of studies of the vector virus relationship and of the host range, further proof was given for the different character of the Australian Carrot motley dwarf virus, theApivm virus 1 Roland and CMV. The experiments showed that preliminary starving of the aphids for 1 h increases their ability to transmit the virus by 3–3%.     

Quantitative studies on the uptake and retention of potato leafroll virus by aphids in laboratory and field conditions

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was adapted for the efficient detection and assay of potato leafroll virus (PLRV) in aphids. Best results were obtained when aphids were extracted in 0.05 M phosphate buffer, pH 7.0, and the extracts incubated at 37 °C for 1 h before starting the assay. Using batches of 20 green peach aphids (Myzus persicae), about 0.01 ng PLRV/aphid could be detected. The virus could also be detected in single aphids allowed a 1-day acquisition access period on infected potato leaves. The PLRV content of aphids depended on the age of potato source-plants and the position of source leaves on them. It increased with increase in acquisition access period up to 7 days but differed considerably between individual aphids. A maximum of 7 ng PLRV/aphid was recorded but aphids more usually accumulated about 0.2 ng PLRV per day. When aphids were allowed acquisition access periods of 1–3 days, and then caged singly on Physalis floridana seedlings for 3 days, the PLRV content of each aphid, measured subsequently, was not strongly correlated with the infection of P. floridana. The concentration of PLRV in leaf extracts differed only slightly when potato plants were kept at 15, 20, 25 or 30 °C for 1 or 2 wk, but the virus content of aphids kept on leaves at the different temperatures decreased with increase of temperature. PLRV was transmitted readily to P. floridana at all temperatures, but by a slightly smaller proportion of aphids, and after a longer latent period, at 15 °C than at 30 °C. The PLRV content of M. persicae fed on infected potato leaves decreased with increasing time after transfer to turnip (immune to PLRV). The decrease occurred in two phases, the first rapid and the second very slow. In the first phase the decrease was faster, briefer and greater at 25 and 30 °C than at 15 and 20 °C. No evidence was obtained that PLRV multiplies in M. persicae. These results are compatible with a model in which much of the PLRV in aphids during the second phase is in the haemocoele, and transmission is mainly limited by the rate of passage of virus particles from haemolymph to saliva. The potato aphid, Macrosiphum euphorbiae, transmitted PLRV much less efficiently than M. persicae. Its inefficiency as a vector could not be ascribed to failure to acquire or retain PLRV, or to the degradation of virus particles in the aphid. Probably only few PLRV particles pass from the haemolymph to saliva in this species. The virus content of M. euphorbiae collected from PLRV-infected potato plants in the field increased from early June to early July, and then decreased. PLRV was detected both in spring migrants collected from the plants and in summer migrants caught in yellow water-traps. PLRV was also detected in M. persicae collected from infected plants in July and August, and in trapped summer migrants, but their PLRV content was less than that of M. euphorbiae, and in some instances was too small for unequivocal detection.     

Comparative transmission of bean leaf roll and pea enation mosaic viruses by aphids

Acyrthosiphon pisum was a more efficient vector than Myzus persicae of bean leaf roll virus (BLRV), but the two species transmitted pea enation mosaic virus (PEMV) equally well and much more often than Megoura viciae. M. viciae did not transmit BLRV, and Aphis fabae did not transmit BLRV or PEMV. BLRV and PEMV were transmitted more often by nymphs of A. pisum than by adult apterae or alatae that fed on infected plants only as adults, but both viruses were readily transmitted by adults that had developed on infected plants. The shortest time in which nymphs acquired BLRV was 2 h, and 50 % transmitted after an acquisition period of 4 days. Some nymphs acquired PEMV in 30 min and 50% in 8 h. The shortest time for inoculation of BLRV by adults was 15 min, but some transmitted PEMV in probes lasting less than 1 min. The median latent periods of BLRV and PEMV in aphids fed for 12 h on infected plants were, respectively, 105 and 44 h. Clones of A. pisum differed in their ability to transmit BLRV and PEMV, and efficiency in transmitting the two viruses seemed to be unrelated. Some aphids that fed successively on plants infected with each virus transmitted both viruses, and infectivity with one virus did not seem to affect transmission of the other.     

THE MANNER OF TRANSMISSION OF SOME BARLEY YELLOW-DWARF VIRUSES BY DIFFERENT APHID SPECIES

Some barley yellow-dwarf (BYD) viruses isolated from cereal crops in Great Britain were transmitted by Rhopalosiphum padi , L. and others were not. Sitobion fragariae (Walker), S. avenae (Fabricius), and Metopolophium dirhodum (Walker) all transmitted viruses of both types, but they usually transmitted those of which Rhopalosiphum was a vector less readily than did R. padi. The transmissibility of a virus by a given aphid species was not affected by transmission with another, less efficient, vector species. Neomyzus circumflexus (Buckt.) and Rhopalosiphum maidis (Fitch) transmitted the few viruses with which they were tested.
A few R. padi acquired virus from infected leaves during 30 min. feeding and inoculated healthy seedlings during 15 min. feeding, but the minimum total time taken to acquire and transmit was 10 hr. and 32 hr. were needed for about half the aphids that were able to acquire and transmit virus to do so. This may indicate the existence of a short latent period of the virus in the vector, although the evidence is not conclusive. The times spent on infected plants influenced the results more than those spent on healthy ones; many transmissions occurred with short feeding times on healthy plants so long as the time spent on infected leaves was long, but the reverse was not true. Nymphs of R. padi that moulted after they left infected plants on which they fed long enough to become infective, infected slightly fewer plants than adults fed for the same times.     

The transmission of potato virus Y by aphids of different vectoring abilities

Adult apterae of Myzus persicae and Macrosiphum euphorbiae that did not transmit potato virus Y^N (PVY^N) in a first test were as likely to transmit the virus in a subsequent test as those that did transmit on the first occasion. Only 16% of M. persicae that were allowed a single acquisition probe into a leaf infected with both PVY^O and PVY^N transmitted both strains, 37% transmitted either PVY^O or PVY^N and 47% did not transmit. There was no difference in the duration of probes that did or did not result in virus transmission. Statistical models were fitted to data on the frequency of transmission of PVY^O, PVY^N or both PVY^O and PVY^N by M. persicae and by aphids of poorer vector species, M. euphorbiae and Rhopalosiphum padi. Transmission of the two viruses ocurred independently of each other and consequently transmission of both was rare with M. euphorbiae and R. padi. Mineral oil applied to leaves infected with both strains diminished the frequency of transmission by M. persicae. Fitted models suggested that the aphids that probed through the oil droplets on leaves treated 30 min previously did not transmit virus, and that 24 h later, when the droplets had spread, aphids probing through them could transmit but with a decreased ability.     

Cucurbit aphid‐borne yellows virus (CABYV) modifies the alighting,settling and probing behaviour of its vector Aphis gossypii favouring its own spread

Plant pathogens are able to influence the behaviour and fitness of their vectors in such a way that changes in plant–pathogen–vector interactions can affect their transmission. Such influence can be direct or indirect, depending on whether it is mediated by the presence of the pathogen in the vector's body or by host changes as a consequence of pathogen infection. We report the effect that the persistently aphid‐transmitted Cucurbit aphid‐borne yellows virus (CABYV, Polerovirus) can induce on the alighting, settling and probing behaviour activities of its vector, the cotton aphid Aphis gossypii. Only minor direct changes on aphid feeding behaviour were observed when viruliferous aphids fed on non‐infected plants. However, the feeding behaviour of non‐viruliferous aphids was very different on CABYV‐infected than on non‐infected plants. Non‐viruliferous aphids spent longer time feeding from the phloem in CABYV‐infected plants compared to non‐infected plants, suggesting that CABYV indirectly manipulates aphid feeding behaviour through its shared host plant in order to favour viral acquisition. Viruliferous aphids showed a clear preference for non‐infected over CABYV‐infected plants at short and long time, while such behaviour was not observed for non‐viruliferous aphids. Overall, our results indicate that CABYV induces changes in its host plant that modifies aphid feeding behaviour in a way that virus acquisition from infected plants is enhanced. Once the aphids become viruliferous they prefer to settle on healthy plants, leading to optimise the transmission and spread of this phloem‐limited virus.     

Use of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to study transmission of banana bunchy top virus by the banana aphid (Pentalonia nigronervosa)

Banana bunchy top virus (BBTV) is a ssDNA virus transmitted by the banana aphid, ( Pentalonia nigronervosa ). A polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay was used to study BBTV transmission efficiency, to determine the minimum acquisition-access period, the minimum inoculation-access period, the retention time, and to examine the possibility of transovarial transmission in this vector. BBTV was acquired by banana aphids within 4 h and was transmitted within 15 min feeding. On average, more than 65% of single viruliferous adult aphids transmitted BBTV. The aphids retained BBTV for their adulthood of 15–20 days. None of the 131 offspring from adult aphids reared on infected bananas were BBTV positive. Aphid transmission experiments were conducted to determine if taro and gingers are hosts of BBTV. None of the 87 taro and ginger plants exposed to aphid inoculation were infected by BBTV. The BBTV-free status of these plants was verified by PCR assay for 6 months post-inoculation. In addition, none of the taro and ginger samples collected from fields adjacent to BBTV-infected banana plants tested positive for BBTV.     

The effect of Pymetrozine, a feeding inhibitor of Homoptera, in preventing transmission of cauliflower mosaic caulimovirus by the aphid species Myzus persicae (Sulzer)

Mature turnip plants, mechanically infected as seedlings with the semi-persistent, aphid transmitted caulimovirus, cauliflower mosaic (CaMV), were treated by spraying with either a solution of Pymetrozine plus adjuvant oil, adjuvant oil or water only. At the same time turnip seedlings were sprayed for each of the three treatments. Two h after spraying, Myzus persicae were caged onto an infected turnip plant for each of the three treatments. Twenty four h later, groups of 20 aphids were transferred from the infected plants, to seedlings from each of the three treatments. After 24 h, these were removed and seedlings were later recorded for infection. This acquisition/transmission assay was repeated at 3, 7, 14 and 21 days from treatment. Only aphids exposed to the Pymetrozine treated source plants were shown to move off the plant and failed to transmit CaMV effectively to treated or control seedlings during the 0 and 3 day assays. The majority soon died when transferred to test seedlings. Progressively, more aphids were found to survive and transmit CaMV during the 7 day and 14 day assays. By 21 days no significant effect could be recorded between treatments and controls. Aphids transferred from control treated source plants to Pymetrozine treated seedlings were able to transmit CaMV within all the assays, although higher mortality was recorded in the day 0 assessment when compared to those transferred to control treated seedlings. We conclude from this trial, that a single foliar treatment of 100 mg litre¹ Pymetrozine to CaMV infected turnip plants, effectively reduces the vectoring capability of M. persicae, that feed on these plants, for up to 7 days. However, Pymetrozine failed to stop virus transmission to treated seedlings from the ingress of viruliferous aphids. Pymetrozine was not shown to cause any phytotoxic responses to plants used in this trial.     

Aphid retention of maize dwarf mosaic virus (potyvirus): epidemiological implications

In total, 17 589 aphids were assayed for rate of loss of inoculativity and maximum retention times of maize dwarf mosaic (MDMV). The Standard-treatment, involved acquisition access to MDMV-infected tissue followed by confinement of active aphids in Petri dishes. In addition various aphid immobilisation treatments were used to prevent probing on solid surfaces after acquisition access to simulate conditions experienced by wind-borne aphids when aloft. Immobilisation treatments, using nitrogen or argon gases at 25°C, or cold treatments at 6°C after acquisition access greatly increased the efficiency of MDMV transmission by greenbugs, Schizaphis graminum, in an experimental design where insects were individually assayed for transmission over a 7 h period. Further tests in which groups of greenbugs were assayed for MDMV transmission revealed that MDMV strains may be retained for over 21 h, regardless of post-acquisition access treatment. Experiments with other aphid vectors of MDMV (Dactynotus ambrosiae, Macrosiphum euphorbiae, Rhopalosiphum maidis and Myzus persicae) also demonstrated MDMV retention times exceeding 18 h. These results show that the rate at which aphids lose MDMV inoculativity is lower when solid surface probing behaviour is denied, and that MDMV retention times are longer than those previously published. The findings are discussed in relation to the epidemiology of nonpersistent viruses and their dispersal over great distances.     

Aphid transmission of Beet Yellows Virus affected by homologous antiserum

A thin layer of homologous antiserum (against the beet yellows virus - BYV) between the leaf surface and a Parafilm membrane totally inhibited the acquisition of BYV by aphidsMyzus persicae (Sulz.), but it did not affect the inoculation of BYV by infective aphids. BYV transmission decreased with aphids picking up the virus from leaves coated with a normal rabbit serum. Aphids sucking on purified BYV suspension through the Parafilm membrane as well as aphids allowed to probe into leaves of healthy plants spread with an infectious purified BYV suspension failed to transmit BYV. No BYV particles could be detected in eluates from stylets and labia cut off from aphids which had probed on BYV infected plants by electron microscopic examination. The acquisition seems to be the most important phase for the aphid transmission of BYV which is apparently carried on the stylet surface.