Next Article in Journal
Blackberry Growth Monitoring and Feature Quantification with Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Remote Sensing
Previous Article in Journal
Influence of Artificial Lighting on the Germination of Quina Seeds (Cinchona spp.) in Controlled Conditions Within a Geodesic Dome Powered by Photovoltaic Energy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
AgriEngineering
Volume 6
Issue 4
10.3390/agriengineering6040259
agriengineering-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Objective Assessment of the Damage Caused by Oulema melanopus in Winter Wheat with Intensive Cultivation Technology Under Field Conditions

by
Sándor Keszthelyi
*,
Richárd Hoffmann
and
Helga Lukács
Department of Agronomy, Institute of Agronomy, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Kaposvár Campus, S. Guba str. 40, H-7400 Kaposvár, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
AgriEngineering 2024, 6(4), 4538-4548; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering6040259
Submission received: 21 October 2024 / Revised: 19 November 2024 / Accepted: 26 November 2024 / Published: 28 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Pre and Post-Harvest Engineering in Agriculture)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Oulema melanopus L., 1758 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) is one of the significant pests affecting cereal crops in Europe. Its damage is evident in the destruction of leaves during the spring growing season, leading to substantial impacts on both the quantity and quality of the harvested yields. The study aimed to evaluate the extent of leaf surface damage, changes in chlorophyll content caused by this pest, and the subsequent effects on yield quality. To achieve this, two experimental parcels were established, each subjected to different pesticide treatments during the spring vegetation cycle, but notably, with the difference that one parcel did not receive insecticide applications. The phytosanitary status, yield quantity, and quality parameters of thes parcels were compared. Chlorophyll content in damaged and undamaged plants was monitored in vivo using SPAD measurements, while the extent of leaf surface damage was assessed through image analysis using GIMP software 2.10.32. Harvested grain underwent milling and baking analysis, with milling and baking-quality indicators measured using a NIR grain analyzer. The results revealed that omitting springtime insecticide treatments during the emergence of O. melanopus led to significant reductions in leaf area and yield quality. In untreated parcels, leaf decession followed linear progression, reaching 35–40% within 20 days. This damage correlated with the decline in SPAD index values, indicating a 40–50% reduction in chlorophyll content dependent photosynthetic activity. Consequently, there were substantial decreases in milling and baking qualities, including nearly 30% reductional protein-content indicators and 10% in the Hagberg falling number. In summary, our large-scale field experiments demonstrated that persistent O. melanopus damage in wheat fields significantly reduced both the quantity and quality of yields, particularly protein content. These facts underscore the economic importance of timely pest-control measures to mitigate damage and preserve crop value.

1. Introduction

Oulema melanopus, L. 1758 (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) is among the most important pests of cultivated cereals [1], primarily feeding on cereal crops and various grass species [2]. Its preferred hosts include barley, triticale, oats, and rye, but their primary food sources are mainly wheat species and varieties, and their alternative food crop is maize [3]. Historically, its main crops were barley and oats, but in recent decades, it has found its main feeding grounds in barley and wheat [4], necessitating control measures almost every year. The pest can cause substantial damage to developing stands of spring-sown cereals, including oats, spring barley, and spring wheat.
O. melanopus develops in one generation per year and is all overwinter in the adult stage [5]. The insects leave their overwintering sites at a temperature of 10 °C, locate cereal plants when the daily maximum temperature approaches 15 °C, and become active and begin flying at a temperature of 25 °C [3]. Females begin laying eggs within one week of emergence, depositing them in rows along the leaf veins. Their 2–3 mm long, snail-like larvae are always found on the leaf color. The complete life cycle spans approximately 1.5 months, with embryonic development lasting 7–15 days, larval development 15–20 days, and pupation 14–20 days [6].
Both larvae and adults are highly destructive, using their chewing mouthparts to exfoliate the epidermis of the leaves, leading to bleaching and loss of photosynthetic surface. While cereals are the primary hosts, maize also suffers damage under certain conditions [1]. In severe cases, O. melanopus damages can cause complete defoliation or the death of bushy or dense stands [7]. Mass reproduction, particularly during the formation of the flag leaf, poses a significant threat to crop yield and quality [8].
Damage to vegetative leaf surfaces caused by O. melanopus impacts water balance [9,10] and nutrient incorporation into generative organs [11,12]. The initial leaf surface damage is associated with characteristic color changes detectable by remote-sensing technologies. In winter, wheat stands with intense photosynthetic activity until mid-spring, and the consequences of any biotic or abiotic stressor on the leaves will also induce changes in vegetative indices [13]. As damage progresses, larval feeding on the vegetative surface following O. melanopus adult infestation becomes more severe. The dynamic increase in population numbers is reflected in the leaf surface and fruit degradation trend. Steinger et al. [14] carried out an aggregated data analysis from several years that increasing defoliation intensity leads to a significant linear decrease in specific quality values. Samu et al. [15] reported that the weight of the yield was 22–29% lower at maximum leaf defoliation. Damage was most severe when it occurred on the uppermost leaf blades or specifically on the flag leaf. The quantitative losses from leaf damage are accompanied by changes in the protein and carbohydrate content in the grain’s endosperm. Interestingly, early leaf damage has increased grain protein content by at least 9%, possibly due to the accumulation of stress-related proteins [15]. This can be explained by the fact that proteins involved in protection against biotic and abiotic stresses are mainly accumulated in the seed [16]. Steinger et al. [14] showed that yield loss was linearly related to the intensity of defoliation up to 60%, with a 10% increase in defoliation resulting in a 1.14% reduction in grain yield. The protein content of the grains was only slightly reduced. In the later growing season or the case of prolonged damage, the reduction in protein content in the grains may be significant, but the extent of the reduction depends mainly on variety or soil type [17].
The main consequence of leaf damage is that nutrient incorporation into the grain will be changed, which can be reflected in differentiation in quality at harvest [7,15]. The scientific assessment of protein changes in wheat grain due to O. melanopus damage is inconsistent. The expected outcome of these earlier studies is that the qualitative value alteration largely depends on the development of the plant population affected by the damage, the exposure to the damage, and other abiotic and physiological factors. However, more information is needed on what kind of quantitative and qualitative changes will occur in winter wheat in factual, practical damage events.
Despite the known impacts of O. melanopus on cereal crops, limited objective analyses have been conducted to link leaf surface damage with photosynthesis and nutrient content changes in winter wheat. Therefore, our investigation aims to fill this gap by exploring and providing additive information on the detrimental impact of crop defoliators on winter wheat. The other goal was to illuminate how much the leaf surface is damaged if the plant is not insecticidally treated in the spring vegetation cycle. Furthermore, the research aimed to evaluate the alterations in chlorophyll content dependent photosynthetic activity and the integration quality of nutrient content as a function of damage.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Field and Settings

Field studies were conducted in 2024 on a 10-hectare of winter wheat vegetation located near Bárdudvarnok (GPS: 46.328 N 17.6877 E) in Somogy County, Hungary. The area was cultivated with the early maturing Falado® variety from Syngenta (Basel, Switzerland), sown on 10 October 2023, following conservation tillage (without soil rotation) practices. To promote healthy crop growth, foliar fungicide treatments were applied across the field in autumn to manage leaf diseases, and insecticides were used to control aphid infestations. During the spring growing season, nitrogen-containing head manure was applied uniformly in early spring (GS37) and at flowering (GS58).
At the beginning of spring, two large-scale experimental parcels of 2 hectares were established adjacent to one another within the field to assess the damage caused by O. melanopus objectively. The two parcels were sprayed with pesticides three times during the spring growing season, except that one parcel was sprayed with fungicide only (after this: untreated), while the other parcel was sprayed with both fungicide and insecticide (after this: treated) (Table 1). The insecticidal active ingredients applied were both fourth-generation pyrethroid insecticides with contact activity.
These chemical treatments were timed so that the first sprays were applied immediately after the beginning of the O. melanopus larval period (28 March 2024). The phenology of O. melanopus emergence observed in the experimental area, as well as the chemical treatments and sampling dates, are summarized in Figure 1.
Two additional sprays, administrated on 18 April and 20 May 2024, were scheduled at 3–4-week intervals based on field observations. These treatments were intended to mitigate the recruitment and damage caused by other pest species that typically emerge later in the growing season. All other agrotechnical practices and nutrient management operations were carried out uniformly across the entire experimental area, utilizing intensive cultivation techniques aimed at producing high-quality winter wheat.

2.2. Determination of Leaf Area Decay by Objective Image Analysis

To assess the impact of O. melanopus chewing damage on photosynthetic surface area, samples were taken from the experimental parcels following the emergence of O. melanopus adults. On 8 April and four subsequent occasions (13, 18, 23, and 28 April), 10 leaves were randomly sampled from the upper leaf level immediately below the developing spike in treated and untreated parcels.
Five sets of 10 leaves were collected from each parcel for this estimation. These 10-leaf samples were obtained from 1 × 1 m throwing frames placed five times across the parcels. The number of leaf samples from a randomly placed frame within the field provided a representative basis for objectively assessing the extent of the damage. The collected leaves were scanned, and percentages of pixel-based leaf surface destruction were determined using GIMP 2.10.32 image analysis software. During this process, a well-defined damaged surface was visually selected and outlined using the tools provided by the software. This approach allowed for an objective evaluation of pixel counts by re-selecting the damaged and intact leaf surfaces (Figure 2).

Estimation of Chlorophyll Content by SPAD Index Determination

The effect of crop damage caused by O. melanopus on chlorophyll content was analyzed using the SPAD index in 2024. In this non-invasive study, measurements were conducted in the experimental parcels on three occasions (10 20, and 30 May) at 10-day intervals after the damage had developed. During the measurements, 10 individual points per leaf were recorded (representing the entire leaf surface) on 10 consecutive, different leaf areas of 10 randomly selected plants. Measurements were taken using a marked measuring rod positioned approximately 7 cm from the soil surface and recorded with SPAD (Soil Plant Analysis Development—SPAD-502; Konica Minolta Sensing Inc., Tokyo, Japan) equipment (the experimental setup of plant materials is described in Section 2.2). As wheat leaves are approximately 10–15 cm long, measurements were taken at intervals of approximately 1–1.5 cm along the entire length of each leaf, providing an objective assessment of chlorophyll content.
During each measurement session, the SPAD index values recorded per leaf section of plants in treated and untreated parcels were statistically compared. Similar measurements from consecutive sessions were analyzed using one-way ANOVA in the statistical program R-4.4.2 for Windows (p < 0.05) [18].

2.3. Quality Analysis of Wheat Grain Yields by NIR Spectroscopy

From the air-dried, pre-harvest winter wheat field (13 July 2024), 6 grain samples of 2 kg each were collected per parcel. Excluding the edge rows of the field, spikes were randomly collected from a 20 m2 area inside the field, and the grains were subsequently threshed. The resulting samples were analyzed using a FOSS 2012 Infratec™ NIR grain analyzer (Foss Allé, Hilleroed, Denmark). The milling-value parameters measured included hectolitre weight (kg/hL), moisture content [% (m/m)], blend content [% (m/m)], and broken grain content [% (m/m)]. In addition, the baking value parameters analyzed were total protein content (%), wet gluten content [% (m/m)], Hagberg falling number (s), and Zeleny sedimentation index (mL).
The quality parameters from insecticide-treated and untreated parcels were statistically compared using the one-way ANOVA method, performed in the statistical program R-4.4.2 for Windows (p < 0.05) [18].

3. Results

3.1. Effect of Damage on Photosynthetic Surface Area and Chlorophyll Content

The trends in leaf area loss recorded over time are shown in Figure 3. Figure 3a illustrates that within approximately 20 days of the spring growing season following larval infestation, nearly 30% of leaf area loss occurred in the untreated parcel. As this damage process progresses, a high percentage of severe damage to the assimilation plant surface area can be expected by May. In contrast, leaf damage in the treated parcels only moderately exceeded the approximately 10% leaf area loss recorded before spraying in the later period. The damage process under natural conditions is characterized by a strong linear correlation, as illustrated by the trend line fitted to the data from the untreated parcels. The strength of this linear trend is further emphasized by the high value of the determination coefficient. Similarly, the leaf area loss measured in the treated parcels follows a linear trend; however, the insecticide spraying on 18 April disrupted the upward trend. As a result, a much more moderate progression of leaf damage was observed in the treated area after that. The representative samples shown in Figure 3b clearly demonstrate the progression rate of the damage caused by the pest.
Table 2 presents the SPAD index values recorded at three distinct time points during the May vegetation period of the winter wheat stand. The data demonstrates that the treated plant’s chlorophyll content consistently surpassed the similar values measured in the untreated plant across all three recording periods. The SPAD index values recorded at each leaf level and time point were significantly different when comparing treated and untreated samples, providing robust evidence of the impact of O. melanopus on chlorophyll content. In the untreated parcels, a noticeable decline in chlorophyll contentwas observed over time, with significant differences in SPAD indices apparent only during the first two recording occasions. The comparison of values from the second and the third recordings did not reveal any statistically significant difference (p > 0.05), further reinforcing the reliability of our findings.
Overall, the chewing damage caused by O. melanopus reduced chlorophyll contentby approximately 50% in the experimental winter wheat plants. While alterations in the SPAD index between different leaf levels were not statistically significant, the decline in chlorophyll content was evident when analyzing tissue damage within the same leaf level.

3.2. Yield Quality of Winter Wheat Depends on Insecticide Spraying

The milling and baking values of the crop samples from the insecticide-treated and untreated parcels are shown in Table 3. It was found that the crop samples from the treated parcels were lower than the treated samples for all the values analyzed. This was confirmed in all cases by the results of the one-way variance analysis, which showed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05).
For the milling-value indicators, the most pronounced differences were observed in the parameters of the physical characteristics of the crop, such as broken grains and mixed content. Additionally, hectolitre weight, an indirect indicator of the protein content in the crop, showed a decrease of nearly 6% in untreated, damaged samples. A significant difference in grain moisture content at harvest was also noted when comparing treated and untreated samples. Although the moisture content of both groups was below the expected air-dried grain moisture content, samples from untreated parcels had, on average, 11–12% lower water content.
The baking-quality indicators exhibited similar variations to the milling-quality indicators. Parameters related to protein incorporation, including protein content, wet gluten content, and sedimentation index, reflected the substantial disruption in protein degradation caused by insect damage. These three indicators showed decreases within a similar range, between 28 and 35%, due to the damage. However, wet gluten content was the most affected quality indicator, significantly influencing the crop’s potential for further use and processing. Hagberg’s falling number measurement—the activity of starch-degrading enzymes—was also lower in samples from untreated parcels. The variation of approximately 10% in this indicator represented the smallest percentage reduction among the analyzed baking values.

4. Discussion

The study confirmed that spring leaf damage caused by O. melanopus significantly affects the chlorophyll content dependent photosynthetic activity of attacked winter wheat plants. In untreated areas, the pest can destroy nearly 40% of the photosynthesizing leaf area in about 20 days. As insect number increases, the damage progresses in a markedly increasing linear pattern. The importance of this pest in determining both the quality and quantity parameters of winter wheat is highlighted in a study by Mazurkiewicz et al. [19]. Their findings, based on empirical experiments, indicate that O. melanopus is among the most dangerous pests of cereals, with heavy larval damage reducing leaf area by 50% and, in some cases, 80%, leading to yield losses of 10–25%.
The extent of damage caused by O. melanopus can vary considerably across different crops. For example, different pest densities and damage levels were recorded in stands of winter wheat and winter barley grown under similar conditions in Poland. The results showed that larval density ranged from 22 to 26 larvae per 100 stems in winter wheat and 29 to 36 per 100 stems in winter barley. Yield loss of 0.5–4% per parcel in winter wheat and 3–8% per parcel in winter barley. Of note was the significant negative correlation between beetle activity and the hydrothermal index, as higher precipitation and lower temperatures negatively affected O. melanopus activity [20].
A reduction in chlorophyll contentdue to leaf damage was recorded in the experimental area. The decline in the SPAD index values, which represents the photosynthetic assimilation activity, sometimes exceeded 50%, indicating quantitative and qualitative deficiencies of valuable assimilates incorporated into the grains [21]. When herbivores attack, plants exhibit a defensive response characterized by the accumulation of secondary metabolites and inhibitory proteins. These changes are often interpreted as increased resource investment and disrupt the primary metabolism. Rather than stimulating photosynthesis, herbivory insects reduce photosynthetic carbon fixation [22]. These findings align with previous experimental results by Lukács et al. [8] on O. melanopus. Similarly, a study by Samu et al. [15] showed that complete leaf defoliation at the end of a vegetation period can reduce a reduction of wheat thousand-kernel weight by 22–29%. Although no strong correlation was found for general leaf defoliation, damage to the flag leaf immediately below the ear was shown to have the greatest impact on yield quality [23]. Supporting this, Barari [7] reported that flag leaf damage negatively affects grain weight per spike and thousand-kernel weight. With increasing levels of flag leaf damage, grain weight and grain number per spike and per yield declined.
The study further demonstrated that damage caused by O. melanopus has a substantial negative impact on the milling and baking values of harvested winter wheat. Failure to control the pest results in a significant decline in crop quality [24]. Both milling values, representing the physical characteristics of the crop, and baking values, representing the nutrient quality of the grains, recorded significant declines due to the damage.
Severe leaf surface damage during the mid-growth periods disrupts the assimilates, leading to a reduction in grain protein content [25]. Numerous studies have reported the negative impact of O. melanopus damage on vegetative plant organs and indirect crop quality [24,25]. Császár et al. [26] confirmed that the extent of damage highly correlates with the degree of flag leaf injury. More significant flag leaf damage leads to more severe nutrient incorporation disturbance and deficiency in developing grains.
Interestingly, our results somewhat contradict those of Steinger et al. [14] and Samu et al. [15], which empirically analyze the damage of O. melanopus on winter wheat. The studies did not confirm a quantitative reduction in protein content directly incorporated into seeds following leaf damage. This discrepancy can be attributed to the increased production of stress proteins as a physiological response to damage, a phenomenon also confirmed by Balla et al. [16]. Avila-Sakar et al. [27] found that low or moderate leaf damage has minimal effects on organic matter incorporation, demonstrating a high tolerance to simulated herbivory.
Studies by Bosnyákné et al. [28] and Keszthelyi et al. [29] have highlighted the issue of organic material redistribution within seeds following insect damage to vegetative organs. Keszthelyi et al. [30] demonstrated through field and laboratory experiments on maize that insect attacks lead plants to prioritize the development of healthy, viable seeds to ensure species survival. However, this adaptive response often coincides with a reduction in quality nutrient content, threatening the usability of crops for baking and animal feed purposes [28,29,31]. In our case, quality indicators such as protein content, wet gluten content, and sedimentation index dropped significantly, likely due to prolonged damage throughout the spring vegetation period [32]. Overall, the plant initially tries to compensate for the reduction of its photosynthetic surface with more intensive assimilation activity. However, severe vegetative surface destruction results in a deficit of organic compounds, such as proteins and carbohydrates, incorporated into the grains’ endosperm.

5. Conclusions

Our study aimed to objectively map the damage caused by O. melanopus on the leaf surface of winter wheat in field circumstances with intensive cultivation technology and its effects on the development of baking-industry values. The results demonstrated that abandoning protection against this significant wheat pest leads to the degradation of the nutrient content, which occurs alongside severe loss of leaf surface and quantitative yield value. The observed degradation of protein-content indicators is directly attributable to the prolonged and severe loss of leaf surface. Total abandonment and omission of repeated chemical interventions against this pest undermine the criteria for cultivating quality winter wheat, potentially resulting in serious economic consequences.
The acquired data reveal that the extent of leaf damage correlates strongly with the level of quantitative and qualitative losses at harvest. The rearrangement of protein molecules within developing seed, followed by a decline in protein content under severe damage, jeopardizes the crop’s processing potential and usability post-harvest. Our results may provide the foundation for future predictive tools and applications—similar to those developed by Machado et al. [33] for soybean leaf damage—that predict or possibly alert expected levels of yield loss as a function of the progress of leaf damage.
Overall, our field experiments on large parcels showed that each instance of intervention abandonment against O. melanopus results in significant quantitative and qualitative losses in the harvested yield. However, all chemical interventions must be implemented in alignment with current and future requirements and in accordance with Integrated Pest Management (IPM) principles. Key elements of IPM include accurate prediction of pest-emergence stages, timely chemical interventions, and agronomic practices that support the healthy development of crops.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.K.; Methodology, S.K.; R.H. and H.L.; Software, H.L.; Validation and investigation, S.K., H.L. and R.H.; Data Curation, S.K. and H.L.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, S.K.; Writing—Review and editing, S.K. and H.L.; Visualization, S.K.; Supervision, R.H. and H.L.; Project administration, H.L.; Funding acquisition, S.K. and R.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Flagship Research Groups Program of the Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on request from the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Willocquet, L.; Aubertot, J.N.; Lebard, S.; Robert, C.; Lannou, C.; Savary, S. Simulating multiple pest damage in varying winter wheat production situations. Field Crops Res. 2008, 107, 12–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wilson, M.C.; Shade, R.E. Survival and development of larvae of the cereal leaf beetle, Oulema melanopa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), on various species of Gramineae. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1966, 59, 170–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wellso, S.G.; Hoxie, R.P. Biology of Oulema. In Biology of Chrysomelidae; Jolivet, P., Petitpierre, E., Hsiao, T.H., Eds.; Series Entomologica; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1988; Volume 42, pp. 497–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kher, S.V.; Dosdall, L.M.; Cárcamo, H.A. Biology, host preferences and fitness of Oulema melanopus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), a recent invasive pest in Western Canada. Arthropod-Plant Interact. 2016, 10, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lampert, E.P.; Haynes, D.L. Population dynamics of the cereal leaf beetle, Oulema melanopus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), at low population densities. Environ. Entomol. 1985, 14, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Olfert, O.; Weiss, R.M.; Woods, S.; Philip, H.; Dosdall, L. Potential distribution and relative abundance of an invasive cereal crop pest, Oulema melanopus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), in Canada1. Can. Entomol. 2004, 136, 277–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Barari, H. Investigating the damage caused by Oulema melanopus (L.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in wheat fields. Plant Prot. Sci. J. Agric. 2019, 41, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lukács, H.; Jócsák, I.; Somfalvi-Tóth, K.; Keszthelyi, S. Physiological responses manifested by some conventional stress parameters and biophoton emission in winter wheat as a consequence of cereal leaf beetle infestation. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 839855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Griffin-Nolan, R.J.; Slette, I.J.; Knapp, A.K. Deconstructing precipitation variability: Rainfall event size and timing uniquely alter ecosystem dynamics. J. Ecol. 2021, 109, 3356–3369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. McDowell, N.G.; Sapes, G.; Pivovaroff, A.; Adams, H.D.; Allen, C.D.; Anderegg, W.R.; Arend, M.; Breshears, D.D.; Brodribb, T.; Choat, B.; et al. Mechanisms of woody-plant mortality under rising drought, CO2 and vapour pressure deficit. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2022, 3, 294–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kauppi, K.; Rajala, A.; Huusela, E.; Kaseva, J.; Ruuttunen, P.; Jalli, H.; Alakukku, L.; Jalli, M. Impact of pests on cereal grain and nutrient yield in boreal growing conditions. Agronomy 2021, 11, 592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Szwarc, J.; Niemann, J.; Bocianowski, J.; Jakubus, M.; Mrówczyński, M. Connection between nutrient content and resistance to selected pests analyzed in Brassicaceae hybrids. Agriculture 2021, 11, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Skendžić, S.; Zovko, M.; Lešić, V.; Pajač Živković, I.; Lemić, D. Detection and evaluation of environmental stress in winter wheat using remote and proximal sensing methods and vegetation indices—A review. Diversity 2023, 14, 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Steinger, T.; Klötzli, F.; Ramseier, H. Experimental assessment of the economic injury level of the cereal leaf beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in winter wheat. J. Econ. Entomol. 2020, 113, 1823–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Samu, F.; Szita, É.; Simon, J.; Cséplő, M.; Botos, E.; Pertics, B.; Růžičková, J.; Gerstenbrand, R.; Rakszegi, M.; Elek, Z.; et al. Cereal leaf beetle (Oulema spp.) damage reduces yield and is more severe when natural enemy action is prevented. Crop Prot. 2024, 185, 106893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Balla, K.; Rakszegi, M.; Li ZhonGy, L.Z.; Békés, F.; Bencze, S.; Veisz, O. Quality of winter wheat in relation to heat and drought shock after anthesis. Czech J. Food Sci. 2011, 29, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gallun, R.L.; Everly, R.T.; Yamazaki, W.T. Yield and milling quality of monon wheat damaged by feeding of cereal leaf beetle. J. Econ. Entomol. 1967, 60, 356–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2021; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 14 November 2024).
  19. Mazurkiewicz, A.; Jakubowska, M.; Tumialis, D.; Bocianowski, J.; Roik, K. Foliar application of entomopathogenic nematodes against cereal leaf beetle Oulema melanopus L. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on wheat. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ulrich, W.; Czarnecki, A.; Kruszynski, T. Occurrence of pest species of the genus Oulema (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in cereal fields in Northern Poland. Electr. J. Pol. Agric. Univ. 2004, 7, 4. [Google Scholar]
  21. Sadras, V.O.; Fereres, A.; Ratcliffe, R.H. Wheat growth, yield, and quality as affected by insect herbivores. In Wheat: Ecology and Physiology of Yield Determination; Satorre, E.H., Slafer, G.A., Eds.; Food Product Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 183–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kerchev, P.I.; Fenton, B.; Foyer, C.H.; Hancock, R.D. Plant responses to insect herbivory: Interactions between photosynthesis, reactive oxygen species and hormonal signalling pathways. Plant Cell Environ. 2012, 35, 441–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Császár, O.; Tóth, F.; Lajos, K. Estimation of the expected maximal defoliation and yield loss caused by cereal leaf beetle (Oulema melanopus L.) larvae in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Crop Prot. 2021, 145, 105644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pobereżny, J.; Wszelaczyńska, E.; Lamparski, R.; Lemanowicz, J.; Bartkowiak, A.; Szczepanek, M.; Gościnna, K. The impact of spring wheat species and sowing density on soil biochemical properties, secondary plant metabolites’ content and Oulema ssp’s presence. PeerJ 2023, 11, e14916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Buntin, G.D.; Flanders, K.L.; Slaughter, R.W.; Delamar, Z.D. Damage loss assessment and control of the cereal leaf beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in winter wheat. J. Econ. Entomol. 2004, 97, 374–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Császár, O.; Tóthné Bogdányi, F.; Tóth, F.; Lajos, K. Evaluation of two artificial defoliation methods to simulate damage by the cereal leaf beetle (Oulema melanopus) larvae in winter wheat. Acta Aliment. 2022, 57, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Avila-Sakar, G.; Leist, L.L.; Stephenson, A.G. Effects of the spatial pattern of leaf damage on growth and reproduction: Nodes and branches. J. Ecol. 2003, 91, 867–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bosnyákné Egri, H.; Kerepesi, I.; Keszthelyi, S. Adverse effect of two-spotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae Koch) on soybean protein composition. Acta Aliment. 2017, 46, 355–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Keszthelyi, S.; Bosnyakne, E.H.; Horváth, D.; Csóka, Á.; Kovacs, G.; Donkó, T. Nutrient content restructuring and CT-measured density, volume attritions on damaged beans caused by Acanthoscelides obtectus Say (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Plant Prot. Res. 2018, 58, 91–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Keszthelyi, S.; Pál-Fám, F.; Kerepesi, I. Effect of cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera Hübner) caused injury on maize grain content, especially regarding to the protein alteration. Acta Biol. Hung. 2011, 62, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hatchett, J.H.; Starks, K.J.; Webster, J.A. Insect and mite pests of wheat. Wheat Wheat Improv. 1987, 13, 625–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Torres-Ruiz, J.M.; Cochard, H.; Delzon, S.; Boivin, T.; Burlett, R.; Cailleret, M.; Martin-St Paul, N.K. Plant hydraulics at the heart of plant, crops and ecosystem functions in the face of climate change. New Phytol. 2024, 241, 984–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Machado, B.B.; Orue, J.P.; Arruda, M.S.; Santos, C.V.; Sarath, D.S.; Goncalves, W.N.; Silva, G.G.; Pistori, H.; Roel, A.R.; Rodrigues, J.F., Jr. BioLeaf: A professional mobile application to measure foliar damage caused by insect herbivory. Comp. Electr. Agric. 2016, 129, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriengineering 06 00259 g001
Figure 1. Developmental stages of Oulema melanopus and its host, winter wheat, and the applied chemical treatment and scheduled samplings in the experimental field.
Figure 1. Developmental stages of Oulema melanopus and its host, winter wheat, and the applied chemical treatment and scheduled samplings in the experimental field.
Agriengineering 06 00259 g001
Agriengineering 06 00259 g002
Figure 2. Estimation of damaged wheat leaf area using GIMP image analysis software. (a) scanned leaf area, (b) determination of the number of pixels of the whole leaf area, (c) designated leaf parts, (c1,c2) determination of the number of pixels of leaf spots damaged by Oulema melanopus, (d) image analysis parameters of the damaged leaf area.
Figure 2. Estimation of damaged wheat leaf area using GIMP image analysis software. (a) scanned leaf area, (b) determination of the number of pixels of the whole leaf area, (c) designated leaf parts, (c1,c2) determination of the number of pixels of leaf spots damaged by Oulema melanopus, (d) image analysis parameters of the damaged leaf area.
Agriengineering 06 00259 g002
Agriengineering 06 00259 g003
Figure 3. Trends of leaf surface destroyed by Oulema melanopus, depending on insecticide treatment (a) and representative samples (originating from untreated parcels) from the different sampling times (b). (a–e) aggravation of leaf damage as a function of time.
Figure 3. Trends of leaf surface destroyed by Oulema melanopus, depending on insecticide treatment (a) and representative samples (originating from untreated parcels) from the different sampling times (b). (a–e) aggravation of leaf damage as a function of time.
Agriengineering 06 00259 g003
Table 1. Data of chemical sprays applied to the spring vegetation of the experimental winter wheat field.
Table 1. Data of chemical sprays applied to the spring vegetation of the experimental winter wheat field.
DateInsecticide a.i. *DoseFungicide a.i.Dose
1.28 March 2024esfenvalerate 50 g/L0.2 L/hamefentrifluconazole 100 g/L + pyraclostrobin 100 g/L0.75 L/ha
2.18 April 2024tau-fluvalinate 240 g/L0.2 L/hapyraclostrobin 333 g/L + fluxapyroxad 167 g/L0.85 L/ha
3.20 May 2024tau-fluvalinate 240 g/L0.2 L/haproquinazid 50 g/L + protiokonazole 200 g/L1 L/ha
a.i. = active ingredients; * = they were not applied in the case of untreated parcels.
Table 2. SPAD-based chlorophyll content of winter wheat as a function of leaf levels and insecticide treatments (n = 15) (p < 0.05).
Table 2. SPAD-based chlorophyll content of winter wheat as a function of leaf levels and insecticide treatments (n = 15) (p < 0.05).
Zadoks: GS74
plant height (cm)untreatedtreatedone-way ANOVA
spike mean±SE mean±SEdfFpSPAD index
10. 63–70 53.20±3.88 59.36±0.9814.44=0.044 54–60
9. 56–63 36.96±6.36 55.88±0.559.66=0.004 48–54
8. 49–56 28.06±4.65 58.82±1.4842.48<0.001 42–48
7. 42–49 36.17±5.96 53.49±1.238.67=0.006 36–42
6. 35–42 30.20±4.20 58.85±0.9847.11<0.001 30–36
5. 28–35 29.97±5.99 58.21±1.1822.91<0.001 24–30
4. 21–28 18.96±4.87 59.31±1.1569.69<0.001 18–24
3. 14–21 35.94±5.08 57.92±0.9719.30<0.001 12–18
2. 7–14 23.35±6.21 54.45±1.2225.84<0.001 6–12
1. 0–7 24.19±4.95 59.15±0.7552.17<0.001 0–6
mean31.70 57.74
Zadoks: GS77 ▼ ▼
(cm)df = 1; F = 4.82; p = 0.041df = 1; F = 0.35; p = 0.559one-way ANOVA
spike ▲ ▲ dfFp
10. 63–70 20.69±5.81 57.76±1.16133.42<0.001
9. 56–63 25.34±4.83 58.01±1.3967.34<0.001
8. 49–56 12.16±3.67 56.10±1.56193.77<0.001
7. 42–49 5.56±2.87 57.37±1.27434.58<0.001
6. 35–42 22.71±5.47 56.18±1.3056.77<0.001
5. 28–35 30.73±4.80 56.94±1.9041.24<0.001
4. 21–28 24.66±5.12 57.98±1.5162.36<0.001
3. 14–21 22.99±4.21 56.90±1.4792.41<0.001
2. 7–14 33.73±4.86 55.59±1.5129.47<0.001
1. 0–7 29.25±3.98 58.21±0.9874.94<0.001
mean22.78 57.10
Zadoks: GS79 ▼ ▼
(cm)df = 1; F = 0.36; p = 0.551df = 1; F = 0.68; p = 0.418one-way ANOVA
spike ▲ ▲ dfFp
10. 63–70 12.32±4.31 57.65±1.751102.27<0.001
9. 56–63 18.27±4.29 59.55±1.04103.42<0.001
8. 49–56 27.81±5.33 56.82±1.3030.13<0.001
7. 42–49 8.84±3.20 55.22±1.73175.24<0.001
6. 35–42 14.81±2.59 57.48±1.12245.82<0.001
5. 28–35 28.68±3.83 55.07±1.4444.88<0.001
4. 21–28 19.37±4.10 56.73±1.4379.63<0.001
3. 14–21 33.66±5.07 56.22±1.2720.05<0.001
2. 7–14 14.22±4.09 55.26±1.4196.85<0.001
1. 0–7 35.22±4.49 52.42±1.5514.10<0.001
mean21.32 56.44
Explanation: the arrows indicate the data sets to be compared.
Table 3. Results of NIR-based milling and baking value analysis and statistical comparison tests of wheat crop samples (n = 6) from treated and untreated parcels (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Results of NIR-based milling and baking value analysis and statistical comparison tests of wheat crop samples (n = 6) from treated and untreated parcels (p < 0.05).
Treated
(Mean ± SE)		Different
(%)		Untreated
(Mean ± SE)		One-Way ANOVA
dfFp
milling quality
hectolitre weight75.80 ± 0.13> 5.2171.85 ± 0.0918735.07<0.001
moisture content:12.77 ± 0.18> 11.3511.32 ± 0.16933.07
mixed content0.10 ± 0.00< 66.660.30 ± 0.0045.50
broken seed0 ± 0.00< 1000.75 ± 0.0322.60
baking quality
protein content12.72 ± 0.08> 28.889.05 ± 0.061169.30<0.001
wet gluten content26.67 ± 0.16> 35.0517.32 ± 0.13132.67
Hagberg falling number220.00 ± 0.00> 10.22197.50 ± 2.502207.75
Zeleny sedimentation index48.45 ± 0.21> 33.7932.07 ± 0.11156.10
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Keszthelyi, S.; Hoffmann, R.; Lukács, H. Objective Assessment of the Damage Caused by Oulema melanopus in Winter Wheat with Intensive Cultivation Technology Under Field Conditions. AgriEngineering 2024, 6, 4538-4548. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering6040259

AMA Style

Keszthelyi S, Hoffmann R, Lukács H. Objective Assessment of the Damage Caused by Oulema melanopus in Winter Wheat with Intensive Cultivation Technology Under Field Conditions. AgriEngineering. 2024; 6(4):4538-4548. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering6040259

Chicago/Turabian Style

Keszthelyi, Sándor, Richárd Hoffmann, and Helga Lukács. 2024. "Objective Assessment of the Damage Caused by Oulema melanopus in Winter Wheat with Intensive Cultivation Technology Under Field Conditions" AgriEngineering 6, no. 4: 4538-4548. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering6040259

APA Style

Keszthelyi, S., Hoffmann, R., & Lukács, H. (2024). Objective Assessment of the Damage Caused by Oulema melanopus in Winter Wheat with Intensive Cultivation Technology Under Field Conditions. AgriEngineering, 6(4), 4538-4548. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering6040259

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop