Pear psyllids are a serious insect pest of the cultivated European pear (Pyrus communis L.) in the production regions of North America and Europe. In North America, Cacopsylla pyricola (Förster) is the only psyllid pest of pears, whereas in Europe, C. pyri (L.) and C. pyrisuga (Förster) are also endemic. Cacopsylla bidens (Šulc) is endemic to parts of southern and eastern Europe as well as the Middle East. The insect has rapidly developed resistance to most of the pesticides used for control, and biological controls alone have rarely provided sufficient control for commercial production. The annual cost per hectare of chemical control is high. Cultivars with durable resistance would enhance the economic and environmental sustainability of pear production by reducing producer costs and pesticide use.
These species of pear psylla and their host apparently coevolved in Europe. Investigations of western European cultivars identified only a few moderately resistant cultivars, including ‘Spina Carpi’ (Quarta and Puggioni, 1985), ‘Triomphe de Ronchin’, ‘Joséphine des Malines’, ‘Doyenne du Poitiers’, and ‘D’Août Lamer’ (Robert et al., 2004, 2005). Higher levels of resistance have been identified in the small-fruited Asian pear species, P. betulifolia Bunge, P. calleryana Decne., P. fauriei Schneid., P. ussuriensis Maxim., and P. × bretschneideri Rehd. and in a few genotypes of the European “snow pear,” P. nivalis Jacq. (Quamme, 1984; Westigard et al., 1970), and in P. ussuriensis × P. communis hybrids (Harris, 1973; Harris and Lamb, 1973; Pasqualini et al., 2006; Quamme, 1984). Pomologists and breeders have also been collecting wild germplasm and landrace cultivars to identify diverse sources of resistance for use in the development of new psylla-resistant cultivars (van der Zwet et al., 1987, 1989).
The behavioral and physiological responses of arthropod pests to resistant host genotypes are termed modes of host plant resistance as distinct from the underlying mechanisms of resistance. Major modes of host plant resistance are 1) antixenosis, which can be observed in terms of disruptions to insect orientation and settling (i.e., host finding) and inhibition of feeding and oviposition; 2) antibiosis, observed as delayed development, increased mortality, and reduced fecundity and egg hatchability; and 3) tolerance or the ability to withstand infestation without damage (Painter, 1951). The term antixenosis was introduced by Kogan and Ortman (1978) to define the inhibitory effects of the host plant, whereas nonpreference refers to behavior exhibited by the pest. Feeding antixenosis has been established as a key mode of resistance, because reduced feeding frequency is associated with reduced oviposition as well as increased mortality and delayed development (Bell, 1991; Bell and Puterka, 2004; Butt et al., 1988, 1989; Puterka, 1997; Robert et al., 1999).
Observation of breeders’ selections in the orchard suggested that some genotypes were at least moderately resistant to pear psylla (unpublished data). The purpose of this research was to assess the degree of resistance in breeders’ selections in a controlled experiment. The overall goal was to select the most promising parents for further breeding and cultivar development.
BellR.L.1991Ovipositional antixenosis-based host resistance to the pear psylla in Pyrus germplasm of east European originHortScience26710(abstr.)
ButtB.A.StuartL.C.BellR.L.1988Feeding behavior of pear psylla (Homoptera: Psyllidae) nymphs on susceptible and resistant Pyrus germplasmJ. Econ. Entomol.8113941397
ButtB.A.StuartL.C.BellR.L.1989Feeding, longevity, and development of pear psylla (Homoptera:Psyllidae) nymphs on resistant and susceptible pear genotypesJ. Econ. Entomol.82458461
KoganM.OrtmanE.E.1978Antixenosis—A new term proposed to replace Painter’s ‘non-preference’ modality of resistanceBull. Entomol. Soc. Am.24175176
LittellR.C.MillikenG.A.StroupW.W.WolfingerR.D.1996SAS®system for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc. Cary NC
PainterR.H.1951Insect resistance in crop plants. Macmillan New York NY
PasqualiniE.CivolaniS.MusacchiS.AncaraniV.DondiniL.RobertP.BaronioP.2006Cacopsylla pyri behaviour on new pear selections for host resistance programsBull. Insectology592737
PuterkaG.L.1997Intraspecific variation in pear psylla (Homoptera: Psyllidae) nymphal survival and development on resistant and susceptible pearEnviron. Entomol.26552558
RobertP.ChaussetJ.Le LézecM.1999Larval development of Cacopsylla pyri (L.) [Homoptera: Psyllidae] on two resistant Pyrus genotypesIOBC WPRS Bull.228991
RobertP.GuérifP.LemoineJ.Le LézecM.2004Criblage de genotypes de Pyrus vis-à-vis de la résistance au psylla du poirier Cacopsylla pyri (L.)Cahiers Agricultures13349354
RobertP.RaimbaultT.Le LézecM.SimardM.H.2005Resistance of some Pyrus communis cultivars and Pyrus hybrids to the pear psylla Cacopsylla pyri (Homoptera, Psyllidae)Acta Hort.671571575
SAS Institute Inc1990SAS®procedures guide Version 6 Third edition. SAS Institute Inc. Cary NC
SaxtonA.M.1998A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. Proc. 23rd SAS Users Group Intl. SAS Institute Inc. Cary NC. p. 1243–1246
SteelR.G.D.TorrieJ.H.1960Principles and procedures of statistics—With special references to the biological sciences. McGraw-Hill New York NY
USDA ARS National Genetic Resources Program2012Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) [online database]. National Germplasm Resources Laboratory Beltsville MD. 18 Dec. 2012. <http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/53581500/catalogs/pyrpolyploid.html>
van der ZwetT.CociuV.CzareckiJ.NyekiJ.BlazekJ.1989Collecting Pyrus germplasm in Romania, Poland, Hungary, and CzechoslovakiaHortScience24420424
WestigardP.H.WestwoodM.N.LombardP.B.1970Host preference and resistance of Pyrus species to the pear psylla, Psylla pyricola FöersterJ. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.953436