1,376 research outputs found
Fertilizer affects the behaviour and performance of Plutella xylostella on brassicas
No full text1 Foliar nitrogen concentration, which can be manipulated in crop plants by fertilizer supply, has long been recognized as a major factor in phytophagous insect abundance and performance. More recently, the type of fertilizer supplied has been shown to influence the abundance of some herbivore species. The diamondback moth Plutella xylostella is a global pest of Brassica crops. Although it has been the subject of numerous studies on host-plant resistance and pest control, few studies have addressed the effect of abiotic factors, such as nutrient supply, on its performance and behaviour.2 We assessed oviposition preference, larval feeding preference and larval performance of P. xylostella on two cultivars of Brassica oleracea. Plants were grown using two fertilizer types, John Innes fertilizer and an organic animal manure, at high and low concentrations.3 Plutella xylostella laid more eggs on cultivar Derby Day than Drago. Derby Day was also the cultivar on which larval performance was maximized. However, differences in larval performance between cultivars were only found when plants were grown in compost with John Innes fertilizer, and not when fertilized with animal manure.4 Foliar nitrogen concentration was greater in plants grown in high fertilizer treatments but did not differ between cultivars. The concentrations of three glucosinolate compounds (glucoiberin, sinigrin and glucobrassicin) were greater in the high fertilizer treatments. Glucosinolate concentrations were higher in the Drago than the Derby Day cultivar.5 These results are discussed in relation to the preference-performance hypothesis, and the assessment of plant resistance differences between cultivars using different types of fertilizer
Phylogeny of rock-inhabiting fungi related to Dothideomycetes
No full textThe class Dothideomycetes (along with Eurotiomycetes) includes numerous rock-inhabiting fungi (RIF), a group of ascomycetes that tolerates surprisingly well harsh conditions prevailing on rock surfaces. Despite their convergent morphology and physiology, RIF are phylogenetically highly diverse in Dothideomycetes. However, the positions of main groups of RIF in this class remain unclear due to the lack of a strong phylogenetic framework. Moreover, connections between rock-dwelling habit and other lifestyles found in Dothideomycetes such as plant pathogens, saprobes and lichen-forming fungi are still unexplored. Based on multigene phylogenetic analyses, we report that RIF belong to Capnodiales (particularly to the family Teratosphaeriaceae s.l.), Dothideales, Pleosporales, and Myriangiales, as well as some uncharacterised groups with affinities to Dothideomycetes. Moreover, one lineage consisting exclusively of RIF proved to be closely related to Arthoniomycetes, the sister class of Dothideomycetes. The broad phylogenetic amplitude of RIF in Dothideomycetes suggests that total species richness in this class remains underestimated. Composition of some RIF-rich lineages suggests that rock surfaces are reservoirs for plant-associated fungi or saprobes, although other data also agree with rocks as a primary substrate for ancient fungal lineages. According to the current sampling, long distance dispersal seems to be common for RIF. Dothideomycetes lineages comprising lichens also include RIF, suggesting a possible link between rock-dwelling habit and lichenisatio
Critical evaluation of solid waste sample processing for DNA-based microbial community analysis
No full textLandfills represent a unique microbial ecosystem and play a significant role in global biogeochemical processes. The study of complex ecosystems such as landfills using DNA-based techniques can be advantageous since they allow for analysis of uncultured organisms and offer higher resolution in measuring demographic and metabolic (functional) diversity. However, sample acquisition and processing from refuse is challenging due to material heterogeneity. Decomposed refuse was used to evaluate the effect of seven sample processing methods on Bacteria and Archaea community structure using T-RFLP. Bias was assessed using measured richness and by comparing community structure using multi-dimensional scaling (MDS). Generally, direct methods were found to be most biased while indirect methods (i. e., removal of cellular material from the refuse matrix before DNA extraction) were least biased. An indirect method using PO4 buffer gave consistently high bacterial and archaeal richness and also resulted in 28 and 34percent recovery of R. albus and M. formicicum spiked into refuse, respectively. However, the highest recovery of less abundant T-RFs was achieved using multiple processing methods. Results indicate differences in measured T-RF diversity from studies of landfill ecosystems could be caused by methodological (i. e., processing method) variation rather than refuse heterogeneity or true divergence in community structure. © 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.Abdo Z, 2006, ENVIRON MICROBIOL, V8, P929, DOI 10.1111-j.1462-2920.2005.00959.x; Anderson KL, 2003, J APPL MICROBIOL, V94, P988, DOI 10.1046-j.1365-2672.2003.01917.x; Banning N, 2005, ENVIRON MICROBIOL, V7, P947, DOI 10.1111-j.1462-2920.2004.00766.x; BARLAZ MA, 1989, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V55, P50; BARLAZ MA, 1989, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V55, P55; BARSUHN K, 1988, CURR MICROBIOL, V16, P337, DOI 10.1007-BF01568542; *BIORAD, 2003, AMPL MYIQ IQ5 REAL A, V5462; Blackwood CB, 2003, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V69, P926, DOI 10.1128-AEM.69.2.926-932.2003; Bockelmann U, 2003, J MICROBIOL METH, V55, P201, DOI 10.1016-S0167-7012(03)00144-1; Burgmann H, 2001, J MICROBIOL METH, V45, P7, DOI 10.1016-S0167-7012(01)00213-5; Calli B, 2005, FRESEN ENVIRON BULL, V14, P737; Chan OC, 2005, ENVIRON MICROBIOL, V7, P1139, DOI 10.1111-j.1462-2920.2005.00790.x; Chen AC, 2003, BIOTECHNOL LETT, V25, P1563, DOI 10.1023-A:1025461915495; Chen AC, 2003, BIOTECHNOL LETT, V25, P719, DOI 10.1023-A:1023458631699; CHENG KJ, 1991, CAN J MICROBIOL, V37, P484; Costa JLD, 2003, BRAZ J MICROBIOL, V34, P311, DOI 10.1590-S1517-83822003000400004; Courtois S, 2001, ENVIRON MICROBIOL, V3, P431, DOI 10.1046-j.1462-2920.2001.00208.x; CRAIG WM, 1987, J NUTR, V117, P56; Cullen DW, 1998, SOIL BIOL BIOCHEM, V30, P983, DOI 10.1016-S0038-0717(98)00001-7; Denman KL, 2007, CLIMATE CHANGE 2007: THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS, P499; Duarte GF, 1998, J MICROBIOL METH, V32, P21, DOI 10.1016-S0167-7012(98)00004-9; Dunbar J, 2002, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V68, P3035, DOI 10.1128-AEM.68.3035-3045.2002; Dunbar J, 2001, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V67, P190, DOI 10.1128-AEM.67.1.190-197.2001; FAEGRI A, 1977, SOIL BIOL BIOCHEM, V9, P105; Forney LJ, 2004, CURR OPIN MICROBIOL, V7, P210, DOI 10.1016-j.mib.2004.04.015; Fortin N, 2004, J MICROBIOL METH, V56, P181, DOI 10.1016-j.mimet.2003.10.006; Frostegard A, 1999, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V65, P5409; Fus MM, 2003, B VET I PULAWY, V47, P107; Gabor EM, 2003, FEMS MICROBIOL ECOL, V44, P153, DOI 10.1016-S0168-6496(02)00462-2; GRUBB JA, 1976, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V31, P262; Hartmann M, 2008, FEMS MICROBIOL ECOL, V63, P249, DOI 10.1111-j.1574-6941.2007.00427.x; Hartmann M, 2006, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V72, P7804, DOI 10.1128-AEM.01464-06; Huang LN, 2003, FEMS MICROBIOL ECOL, V46, P171, DOI 10.1016-S0168-6496(03)00218-6; Huang LN, 2004, FEMS MICROBIOL ECOL, V50, P175, DOI 10.1016-j.femsec.2004.06.008; Hull RM, 2005, J ENVIRON ENG-ASCE, V131, P478, DOI 10.1061-(ASCE)0733-9372(2005)131:3(478); JACOBSEN CS, 1992, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V58, P2458; Keith JE, 2005, LETT APPL MICROBIOL, V41, P208, DOI 10.1111-j.1472-765X.2005.01745.x; Klappenbach JA, 2000, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V66, P1328, DOI 10.1128-AEM.66.4.1328-1333.2000; Krause DO, 2001, BIOTECHNIQUES, V31, P294; KUDO H, 1987, CAN J MICROBIOL, V33, P267; Kuske CR, 1998, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V64, P2463; LaMontagne MG, 2002, J MICROBIOL METH, V49, P255, DOI 10.1016-S0167-7012(01)00377-3; LEEDLE JAZ, 1987, CURR MICROBIOL, V15, P129, DOI 10.1007-BF01577259; LEEDLE JAZ, 1987, CURR MICROBIOL, V15, P77, DOI 10.1007-BF01589365; Lehman RM, 2002, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V68, P1569, DOI 10.1128-AEM.68.4.1569-1575.2002; Magurran A. E., 2004, MEASURING BIOLOGICAL; Martin-Laurent F, 2001, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V67, P2354, DOI 10.1128-AEM.67.5.2354-2359.2001; Martin-Orue SM, 1998, ANIM FEED SCI TECH, V71, P269, DOI 10.1016-S0377-8401(97)00156-9; Miller DN, 1999, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V65, P4715; MILLER TL, 1986, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V51, P201; MINATO H, 1981, J GEN APPL MICROBIOL, V27, P21, DOI 10.2323-jgam.27.21; MINATO H, 1978, J GEN APPL MICROBIOL, V24, P1, DOI 10.2323-jgam.24.1; MYGIND T, 2003, BMC MICROBIOL, V3, pNIL1; Niemi RM, 2001, J MICROBIOL METH, V45, P155, DOI 10.1016-S0167-7012(01)00253-6; OLUBOBOKUN JA, 1987, THESIS LOUISIANA STA; Price GA, 2003, WASTE MANAGE, V23, P675, DOI 10.1016-S0956-053X(03)00104-1; Ranilla MJ, 2003, J ANIM SCI, V81, P537; Ranjard L, 1998, EUR J SOIL BIOL, V34, P89, DOI 10.1016-S1164-5563(99)90006-7; RASMUSSEN MA, 1989, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V55, P2089; Rees GN, 2004, ANTON LEEUW INT J G, V86, P339, DOI 10.1007-s10482-004-0498-x; Reilly K, 1998, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V64, P907; Robe P, 2003, EUR J SOIL BIOL, V39, P183, DOI 10.1016-S1164-5563(03)00033-5; Rozen S, 1998, PRIMER 3, V3; Sambrook J, 2001, MOL CLONING LAB MANU; Sanin FD, 2000, WATER RES, V34, P3063, DOI 10.1016-S0043-1354(00)00084-1; Seaby R., 2007, COMMUNITY ANAL PACKA; Sessitsch A, 2002, J MICROBIOL METH, V51, P171, DOI 10.1016-S0167-7012(02)00065-9; Sharma R, 2003, BIOTECHNIQUES, V34, P92; Stach JEM, 2001, FEMS MICROBIOL ECOL, V36, P139, DOI 10.1016-S0168-6496(01)00130-1; Staley BF, 2006, ENVIRON SCI TECHNOL, V40, P5984, DOI 10.1021-es060786m; STEFFAN RJ, 1988, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V54, P2908; Tien CC, 1999, J APPL MICROBIOL, V86, P937, DOI 10.1046-j.1365-2672.1999.00775.x; USEPA, 2005, MUN SOL WAST GEN REC; Uz I, 2003, P ROY SOC B-BIOL SCI, V270, pS202, DOI 10.1098-rsbl.2003.0061; van Elsas JD, 1998, J MICROBIOL METH, V32, P133, DOI 10.1016-S0167-7012(98)00025-6; VOLOSSIOUK T, 1995, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V61, P3972; Webster G, 2003, J MICROBIOL METH, V55, P155, DOI 10.1016-S0167-7012(03)00140-4; Wikstrom P, 1996, J BIOTECHNOL, V52, P107, DOI 10.1016-S0168-1656(96)01635-5; Yanagita K, 2000, BIOSCI BIOTECH BIOCH, V64, P1737, DOI 10.1271-bbb.64.1737; Zhou JZ, 1996, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V62, P316; Zipper H, 2003, NUCLEIC ACIDS RES, V31, DOI 10.1093-nar-gng03943
Growth issues in Utah: facts, fallacies, and recommendations for quality growth
No full textreportThe Sutherland Institute is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan Utah pub-He policy research and educational organization. The Institute seeks to create effective solutions to Utah\u27s public policy problems. State and local issues are its primary concern. The Institute seeks to positively affect the state\u27s economic, social, and political climate by disseminating workable ideas to the important decision-makers in our state. It does this by publishing and disseminating policy papers, brochures, books, and newsletters and by holding conferences and seminars for legislators and the general public and by furnishing speakers, articles, and opinion pieces to the local media
Recommended from our members
Parasitoids select plants more heavily infested with their caterpillar hosts: a new approach to aid interpretation of plant headspace volatiles
No full textPlants produce volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in response to herbivore attack, and these VOCs can be used by parasitoids of the herbivore as host location cues. We investigated the behavioural responses of the parasitoid Cotesia vestalis to VOCs from a plant–herbivore complex consisting of cabbage plants (Brassica oleracea) and the parasitoids host caterpillar, Plutella xylostella. A Y-tube olfactometer was used to compare the parasitoids’ responses to VOCs produced as a result of different levels of attack
by the caterpillar and equivalent levels of mechanical damage. Headspace VOC production by these plant treatments was examined using gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Cotesia vestalis were able to exploit quantitative and qualitative differences in volatile emissions, from the plant–herbivore complex, produced as a result of different numbers of herbivores feeding. Cotesia vestalis showed a preference for plants with more herbivores and herbivore damage, but did not distinguish between different levels of
mechanical damage. Volatile profiles of plants with different levels of herbivores/herbivore damage could also be separated by canonical discriminant analyses. Analyses revealed a number of compounds whose emission increased significantly with herbivore load, and these VOCs may be particularly good indicators of herbivore number, as the parasitoid processes cues from its external environment
Two Ways to Rule out Error: Severity and Security
No full textI contrast two modes of error-elimination relevant to evaluating evidence in accounts that emphasize frequentist reliability. The contrast corresponds to that between the use of of a reliable inference procedure and the critical scrutiny of a procedure with regard to its reliability, in light of what is and is not known about the setting in which the procedure is used. I propose a notion of security as a category of evidential assessment for the latter. In statistical settings, robustness theory and misspecification testing exemplify two distinct strategies for securing statistical inferences
Plant nutrient supply determines competition between phytophagous insects
No full textIndirect competition is often mediated by plant responses to herbivore feeding damage and is common among phytophagous insect species. Plant-mediated responses may be altered by abiotic conditions such as nutrient supply, which can affect plant growth, morphology, and the concentration of primary and secondary metabolites. Nutrient supply can be manipulated by the type and amount of fertilizer applied to a plant. Brassica oleracea plants were grown in several types of fertilizer, including those commonly used in sustainable and conventional agricultural systems. The occurrence of indirect competition between two phytophagous species from different feeding guilds (a phloem-feeder and leaf-chewer) was assessed. The leaf-chewer reduced aphid populations on plants growing in most fertilizer treatments, but not on those in the ammonium nitrate fertilizer treatment, which caused the highest concentration of foliar nitrogen. The potential consequences of our findings are discussed for phytophagous species in conventional and sustainable agricultural systems
Recommended from our members
Varying responses of insect herbivores to altered plant chemistry under organic and conventional treatments
No full textThe hypothesis that plants supplied with organic fertilizers are better defended against insect herbivores than those supplied with synthetic fertilizers was tested over two field seasons. Organic and synthetic fertilizer treatments at two nitrogen concentrations were supplied to Brassica plants, and their effects on the abundance of herbivore species and plant chemistry were assessed. The organic treatments also differed in fertilizer type: a green manure was used for the low-nitrogen treatment, while the high-nitrogen treatment contained green and animal manures. Two aphid species showed different responses to fertilizers: the Brassica specialist Brevicoryne brassicae was more abundant on organically fertilized plants, while the generalist Myzus persicae had higher populations on synthetically fertilized plants. The diamondback moth Plutella xylostella (a crucifer specialist) was more abundant on synthetically fertilized plants and preferred to oviposit on these plants. Glucosinolate concentrations were up to three times greater on plants grown in the organic treatments, while foliar nitrogen was maximized on plants under the higher of the synthetic fertilizer treatments. The varying response of herbivore species to these strong differences in plant chemistry demonstrates that hypotheses on defence in organically grown crops have over-simplified the response of phytophagous insects
- …
