List of 56 characters used for cluster analysis and their significance levels from univariate test statistics using CANDISC procedure (SAS software).

<p>List of 56 characters used for cluster analysis and their significance levels from univariate test statistics using CANDISC procedure (SAS software).</p

Comparative graph between EPG waveform and honeydew drops.

<p>This graphs are based on percentage duration for each waveform types, NP (Non penetration), pathway, N4-a (sieve element salvation), N4-b (phloem ingestion), N5 (xylem ingestion), N6 (derailed of stylet mechanics) and N7 (potential drop) and honeydew drops for 12 rice varieties. Data were recorded from the first time when BPH make a connection with the plant and then stopped after 12 hs.</p

List of rice varieties and their origin used in this study.

<p>List of rice varieties and their origin used in this study.</p

Correlation coefficients and significance levels of qualitative EPG and honeydew drop characters among 12 rice accessions.

<p>** =  Significant at 1% probability level.</p><p>* =  Significant at 5% probability level; ns  =  Non-significant.</p

Comparison percentage of time for different EPG waveform feeding patterns of <i>N. lugens</i> on different rice varieties for 5 h (8-12 h). (Average percentage frequency and standard error).

<p>Means± SE within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different (P<i>></i>0.05, Kruskal- Wallis and Duncan test).</p><p>** =  Significant at 1% probability level; ns  =  Non-significant.</p

Fastest time (h) to N4-a and N4-b waveform patterns within 12 h experiment.

<p>Means± SE within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different (P<i>></i>0.05, Duncan test).</p><p>** =  Significant at 1% probability level; ns  =  Non-significant.</p><p>‘-‘  =  no N4-b waveform pattern observed in 12 h.</p

Average percentage duration of 7 types EPG waveform.

<p>The histogram graph are based on 8 to 12 h (5 hs) recording and followed the susceptible, moderate and resistance groups produced by cluster analysis.</p

Comparison of different EPG waveform feeding patterns of BPH on different rice varieties for 5 h (8–12 h) (percentage duration and standard error).

<p>Means± SE within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different (P<i>></i>0.05, Kruskal- Wallis and Duncan test).</p><p>** =  Significant at 1% probability level; ns  =  Non-significant.</p

Honeydew production over 12 h by <i>N. lugens</i> on 12 rice varieties using the honeydew clock method.

<p>Means± SE within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different (P<i>></i>0.05, Duncan test).</p><p>** =  Significant at 1% probability level; *  =  Significant at 5% probability level; ns  =  Non-significant.</p><p>‘-‘  =  no honeydew observed in 12 h.</p

Enhancing the Conservation of Crop Wild Relatives in England

<div><p>Humans require resilient, rapidly renewable and sustainable supplies of food and many other plant-derived supplies. However, the combined effects of climate change and population growth compromise the provision of these supplies particularly in respect to global food security. Crop wild relatives (CWR) contain higher genetic diversity than crops and harbour traits that can improve crop resilience and yield through plant breeding. However, in common with most countries, CWR are poorly conserved in England. There is currently no provision for long-term CWR conservation <i>in situ</i>, and comprehensive <i>ex situ</i> collection and storage of CWR is also lacking. However, there is a commitment to achieve their conservation in England’s Biodiversity Strategy and the UK has international commitments to do so as part of the Global Plant Conservation Strategy. Here, we identify a series of measures that could enhance the conservation of English CWR, thereby supporting the achievement of these national and international objectives. We provide an inventory of 148 priority English CWR, highlight hotspots of CWR diversity in sites including The Lizard Peninsula, the Dorset coast and Cambridgeshire and suggest appropriate sites for the establishment of a complementary network of genetic reserves. We also identify individual <i>in situ</i> and <i>ex situ</i> priorities for each English CWR. Based on these analyses, we make recommendations whose implementation could provide effective, long-term conservation of English CWR whilst facilitating their use in crop improvement.</p></div