THE QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE APHIDOFAUNA COLONIZING ROSES FROM SELECTED UTILITY GROUPS

Bożenna Jaśkiewicz
Department of Entomology, University of Agriculture in Lublin, Poland

ABSTRACT

The studies were conducted in the years 2001-2003 in four sites of the green area of Lublin. The following roses were chosen in each site: park rose ‘Grandhotel’ cv., border roses of various cultivars, rugosa rose and multiflorous rose. The purpose of the studies was to establish and compare the species composition and the aphids number colonizing roses which belong to different utility groups. Ten aphid species were found as a result of the studies. The presence of 9 species was observed on park rose ‘Grandhotel’, 7 species – on border rose of various cultivars, 5 species – on rugosa rose and 4 species – on multiflorous rose. The presence of Macrosiphum rosae and Metopolophium dirhodum was observed in each studied year on roses from each group. The highest number of aphids was observed on rugosa rose, and the lowest on multiflorous rose. Aphid Chaetosiphon tetrarhodus dominated on rugosa rose, while M. rosae – on the other roses. Park rose was most willingly colonized by aphid species, while multiflorous rose was the least attractive as the host plant.

Key words: aphids, species composition, ontogenetic domination, species co-existence, roses (park rose ‘Grandhotel’ cv., rugosa rose, multiflorous, border roses).

INTRODUCTION

Roses belong to the oldest and the most popular ornamental shrubs. They are grown for freshly cut flowers and they constitute an indispensable element of the landscape of green areas both in cities and in the open landscape. Rose shrubs are exceptionally decorative, especially in the period of blooming but a lot of species are also cultivated due to the shrub habitat, effective colouring of the leaves in summer and autumn, very decorative fruits and sometimes because of their thorns [11]. Their unquestionable decorative values are lowered by the feeding pests. Aphids belong to the most frequently met harmful arthropodans. They often invade roses in very numerous colonies. Their feeding causes yellowing and falling of the leaves and weakening of the flowering. Besides, dark layers of saprophytic fungi mycelium are developed on abundantly exuded honey-dew covering the plants, which additionally mars the plants.

The purpose of the studies was to establish and compare the species composition and the aphids number colonizing roses which belong to different utility groups and which differ with the shrub habitat, morphological structure and the date of flowering.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The studies were conducted in the years 2001-2003 in four sites of the green area of Lublin: a road site (A), a street site (B), a housing estate site (C) and a park one (D). The following roses were chosen in each site: park rose ‘Grandhotel’ cv., border roses of various cultivars, rugosa rose and multiflorous rose. 60 shoots of similar length were totally analyzed for each rose. Observations of shrubs took place between early spring and late autumn with about 10-days’ intervals. The analysis of the data was conducted on the basis of Kasprzak and Niedbała’s paper [9]. Marczewski and Steinhaus’s index (MS) was used in order to compare the species composition of aphids on the examined roses. Index P_A,B, on the other hand, was applied to establish the similarity of the analyzed aphid communities. Besides, ontogenetic domination (D) was determined, at the same time distinguishing the following classes of domination:

Superdominants> 60.0%
Eudominants 41.0-59.9%
Dominants 21.0-40.9%
Subdominants 10.0-20.9%
Recedents 1.0-9.9%
Subrecedents ≤ 0.9%

RESULTS

The observations performed in the years 2001-2003 on roses of selected utility groups in the area of Lublin found out the occurrence of 10 aphid species (Homoptera, Aphidodea): Chaetosiphon tetrarhodus (Walk.) (photo 1, 2), Macrosiphum rosae (L.) (photo 3, 4, 5), Metopolophium dirhodum (Walk.) (photo 6, 7, 8), Myzaphis rosarum (Kalt.), Maculolachnus submacula (Walk.) (photo 9), Longicaudus trirhodus (Walk.), Aphis fabae Scop. (Photo 10), Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thom.), Eucalipterus tiliae (L.), Aulacorthum sp.. The species composition and the number of particular aphid species differed considerably on the selected roses.

9 species were found on the shrubs of park rose ‘Grandhotel’, 7 species – on border roses of various cultivars, 5 species – on rugosa rose and 4 aphid species were observed on multiflorous rose.

The biggest number of aphids was found on the shrubs of rugosa rose, in all studied years, totally 200 580 individuals. The species Ch. tetrarhodus was the most numerous in each year. Totally, there were 174 020 aphids of this species and it was a superdominant (86.8%). The number of aphids M. dirhodum was 14897, and the number of M. rosae aphids reached 11 150. These species belonged to recedents, with the domination index of 7.4% and 5.6%, respectively. The number of aphids L. trirhodus and M. euphorbiae was 374 and 139 individuals, respectively, which allowed for including these aphids into the group of subrecedents (domination of 0.2 and 0.1%, respectively) (tab. 1, 2).

Totally, 64 892 aphids were found on the park rose ‘Grandhotel’. The biggest number was observed for species M. rosae, which included 47 098 individuals and hence it was included into the group of superdominants (72.6%). The second place considering the numbers was taken by species M. rosarum, which amounted to 7019 aphids and it belonged to subdominants (10.8%). The group of recedents included the species of M. dirhodum, Ch. tetrarhodus, M. submacula, A. fabae and L. trirhodus whose numbers were 5039 aphids, 2262 aphids, 1776 aphids, 975 aphids and 606 aphids, and where the domination index was: 7.8%, 3.5%, 2.7%, 1.5% and 0.9% respectively. The number of E. tiliae and M. euphorbiae was 66 and 51 individuals and those aphids belonged to subrecedents (0.1%) (tab. 1, 2).

The total number of all aphid species colonizing the shrubs of border roses was 20 371 individuals. The species M. rosae was the most numerous; there were totally 18 352 aphids of this species and it was included into superdominants (90.1%). The number of M. submacula, M. dirhodum and M. rosarum was, respectively, 730 aphids, 525 aphids and 502 aphids, while the domination index was 3.6%, 2.6% and 2.5%. Those species were included into the group of recedents. Due to very small number of E. tiliae – 185 aphids, M. euphorbiae – 68 aphids and Ch. tetrarhodus – 10 aphids, these species belonged to subrecedents with the domination of 0.9%, 0.3% and 0.1%, respectively (tab. 1, 2).

The lowest number of aphids was observed on multiflorous rose – totally, 11 109 individuals. The number of M. rosae included 8552 individuals and those aphids were superdominants (77.0%). The number of Ch. tetrarhodus, which included 2309 aphids, made it possible to include this species into the group of subdominants (20.8%). Aphids M. dirhodum, whose number was 184 individuals, belonged to recedents (1.7%). The number of Aulacorthum sp. consisted of 64 individuals and those aphids were included into subrecedents (0.6%) (tab. 1, 2).

Comparing the species composition of aphids on particular roses, it was found out that the greatest similarity was characteristic of park rose ‘Grandhotel’ and border roses of various cultivars. The correlation of similarity MS was in this case 77.8% and all species of aphids occurring on border roses were also found on park rose. The smallest species similarity was observed for park rose ‘Grandhotel’ and multiflorous rose, where the value of correlation MS reached the value of 30.0% (tab. 3).

The number of aphids was most similar on border roses of various cultivars and on multiflorous rose, where the value of P_A,B index reached the value of 0.18. The greatest differences in the number of aphids were found between rugosa rose and multiflorous rose, which is shown in the value of P_A,B, which reached 0.02 (tab. 3).

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

Blackman and Eastop [1] enumerate 42 aphid species (including polyphagous ones) that can occur on plants from genus Rosa L. Nine aphid species colonizing roses in the area of Poland, including Rhodobium porosum (Sand.) and Brachycaudus helichrysi (Kalt.) are enumerated in literature [2, 4, 5, 12, 13]. The author’s own studies did not find any presence of these aphids on rose shrubs. It can be explained by the fact that R. porosum is a rare species in Europe. In Poland it sometimes appears only on the cultivars of cut roses grown under covers; in the open space it is sporadically encountered and if so it is only in summer [1, 4, 7, 13]. On the other hand, B. helichrysi should be considered a species occurring on roses very rarely; only Szelęgiewicz [12] mentions it.

The own studies on roses found out 10 aphid species, including E. tiliae (L.), which probably flew in or dropped on roses quite accidentally, while individual specimens of Aulacorthum sp. were observed only on multiflorous rose in one site in 2001. As a result of the observations it was found out that the species composition, number and dates of occurrence of particular aphid species on the analyzed roses differed very much. The most aphid species were observed on so-called “noble roses”: on park rose ‘Grandhotel’ – 9 species, and on border roses of different cultivars – 7 species. On the other hand, 5 species were found on rugosa rose and 4 – on multiflorous rose. Jaœkiewicz [8] also mentions the occurrence of 5 species on rugosa rose, while Szelęgiewicz [12] enumerates only 3 aphid species on this rose. Gałecka [6] showed that delay of phonological development of a plant has a negative effect on the occurrence and number of aphids. Similar results were obtained in the author’s own studies. The first aphids of particular species, especially M. dirhodum and M. rosae on border roses were observed the latest. Their number was also lower in comparison to rugosa rose and park rose ‘Grandhotel’, which was connected with later development of those shrubs in comparison to the other roses. It was observed that autumn skimming and digging round the shrubs of border roses had an effect on the development of both plants and aphids. Horticultural treatments are usually performed in October, when aphids are still laying eggs. Both oviparous females and the overwintering eggs laid by them are removed together with the shoots. Topping and digging round the shrubs delays their spring development and lack of eggs causes that aphids have to fly over to other shrubs in order to colonize border roses. Cichocka [3] speaks of the effect of the manner of rose cultivation on the occurrence of M. rosae (L.).

Popek [10] states that both native Polish and naturalized species of botanic roses are resistant to pests. The author’s own studies analyzed two species of wild roses – rugosa rose (Rosa rugosa) and multiflorous rose (Rosa multiflora). The smallest number of aphid species and their smallest populations were found on multiflorous rose, which confirms the above statement. On the other hand, the number of aphid species was lower on rugosa rose (5 species) as compared with noble roses but their number was very big (especially the species Ch. tetrarhodus) – three times as high as the aphid population on park rose ‘Grandhotel’ and ten times as high as the aphid population on border roses.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The occurrence of 10 aphid species (Macrosiphum rosae (L.), Chaetosiphon tetrarhodus (Walk.), Metopolophium dirhodum (Walk.), Maculolachnus submacula (Walk.), Myzaphis rosarum (Walk.), Longicaudus trirhodus (Walk.), Aphis fabae Scop., Eucalipterus tiliae (L.), Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thom.) and Aulacorthum sp.) was found out on the examined roses belonging to different utility groups.

2. The presence of 9 species was observed on park rose ‘Grandhotel’, 7 species – on border rose of various cultivars, 5 species – on rugosa rose and 4 species – on multiflorous rose.

3. The presence of M. rosae and M. dirhodum was observed in each studied year on roses from each group.

4. The highest number of aphids was observed on rugosa rose, and the lowest on multiflorous rose. Aphid Ch. tetrarhodus dominated on rugosa rose, while M. rosae – on the other roses.

5. Park rose was most willingly colonized by aphid species, while multiflorous rose was the least attractive as the host plant.

6. Multiflorous rose is the best for city plants, which is due to the small number of aphid species colonizing it and their small population. In the case of the other roses, especially the shrubs growing in representative places, observations should be performed in spring (in May) and use a selective aphid-killing chemical when the number of aphids is high.

REFERENCES

1. Blackman R.L., Eastop V.F., 2000. Aphids on the World’s Crops. An Identification and Information Guide. The Natural History Museum, London, 466 pp.

2. Cichocka E., 1997. Migracja mszyc ze szklarni na pole i z pola do szklarni oraz miejsca zimowania tych owadów [Glasshouse field two-way migration of aphids and their overwintering sites]. Progress in Plant Protection/Postępy w Ochronie Roœlin 37(1), 105-108 [in Polish].

3. Cichocka E., 2003. Bionomia i parametry demograficzne populacji mszycy różano-szczeciowej (Macrosiphum rosae L.) [The bionomy and demographic parameters of Macrosiphum rosae population]. Progress in Plant Protection/ Postępy w Ochronie Roœlin 43 (2), 565-568 [in Polish].

4. Cichocka E., Goszczyński W., 1975. Mszyce (Homoptera, Aphidoidea) szkodniki roœlin uprawianych pod szkłem [Aphids (Homoptera, Aphidoidea) pests of plants cultivated in glasshouses]. Fragm. Faun. XX, 17, 273-305 [in Polish].

5. Cichocka E., Jaœkiewicz B., 2003. Aphid inhabiting roses in different cultures in 1967-2003. Aphids and Other Hemipterous Insects, Monograph, PAG, Rogów, 9, 17-36.

6. Gałecka B., 1986. Układ roœlina żywicielska (Frangula alnus Mill.) – mszyce (Aphis frangulae Kalt.) w rejonie uprzemysłowionym ROW [Host plant (Frangula alnus Mill.) – aphids (Aphis frangulae Kalt.) system in the industrialised area ROW]. Zesz. Probl. Post. Nauk Roln. 329, 27-40 [in Polish].

7. Ilharco F.A., 1968. Algumas correcçōes e adições á lista de afidoes de Portugal Continental. Agron. Lunit., Oeiras 28, 23-34.

8. Jaskiewicz B., 1997. Skład gatunkowy i dynamika pojawu mszyc na wybranych krzewach ozdobnych w latach 1973-1993 [The species composition and dynamics of aphids on selected decorative shrubs in the years 1973-1993]. Wyd. AR w Lublinie s. Rozprawy Naukowe 183, 93pp [in Polish].

9. Kasprzak K., Niedbała W., 1981. Wskazniki biocenotyczne stosowane przy porzšdkowaniu i analizie danych w badaniach iloœciowych [The biocenotic indicators used in ordering and analyse of dates in quantitative searches]. [w:] Górny M., Grüm L. (red.) Metody stosowane w zoologii gleby [in: Methods used in the soil zoology]. PWN, Warszawa, 397-416 [in Polish].

10. Popek R., 2002. Róże dziko rosnšce Polski. Klucz – Atlas [Wild growing roses of Poland]. Plantpress, Kraków, 112pp [in Polish].

11. Seneta W., Dolatowski J., 2003. Dendrologia [Dendrology]. PWN, Warszawa, 559pp [in Polish].

12. Szelęgiewicz H., 1968. Mszyce – Aphidoidea. Katalog fauny Polski [Aphids – Aphidoidea. A catalogue of the Polish fauna]. PWN, Warszawa, XXI, 4, 316pp [in Polish].

13. Wojdyła A., Kamińska M., Łabanowski G., Orlikowski L., 2002. Ochrona róż [Control of roses]. Plantpress, Kraków, 89pp.

Responses to this article, comments are invited and should be submitted within three months of the publication of the article. If accepted for publication, they will be published in the chapter headed 'Discussions' and hyperlinked to the article.