Environmental Entomology, XX(XX), 2023, 1–7

https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvad069
Research

Insect-Microbial Interaction

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ee/nvad069/7227785 by Agrosavia user on 22 November 2023

Interactions of beet leafhopper (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae),
vector of beet curly top virus, and hemp in New Mexico
Rebecca Creamer1,*, , Annabel Simpson1, Hanah T. Rheay2, , Catherine E. Brewer2,
1
Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology, and Weed Science, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA,
2
Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA *Corresponding
author, mail: creamer@nmsu.edu

Subject Editor: Punya Nachappa

Received on 27 February 2023; revised on 15 June 2023; accepted on 11 July 2023

The beet leafhopper, Circulifer tenellus (Baker 1896), is the sole vector of beet curly top virus (BCTV). Both the
virus and the vector have very wide host ranges, including many crops and weeds. Industrial hemp (Cannabis
sativa L.) has been reported as a host for both the virus and leafhopper in the past few years with the legal culti-
vation of the crop in the United States. This research assessed the interactions of the beet leafhopper and hemp
in New Mexico by determining the natural infection of hemp with BCTV in 3 field plots in 2021 and 2022 and
monitoring the numbers of leafhoppers using yellow sticky traps. The relative preference of beet leafhopper
for hemp types and varieties of hemp was assessed using cafeteria-style choice tests. Higher numbers of beet
leafhoppers were trapped in and around hemp fields in 2022 than in 2021 in all 3 locations. BCTV was found
to infect all 3 types of hemp (cannabidiol or CBD, fiber, and grain) in 2022 in 1 location and only a single CBD
variety of hemp in the other 2 locations. Two BCTV strains were identified in CBD hemp, while an additional
BCTV strain was found infecting chile pepper grown at the same location.

Key words: beet leafhopper, curly top virus, hemp

The beet leafhopper, Circulifer tenellus (or Neoaliturus tenellus)
(Baker 1896), is a generalist feeder, prefers semiarid and arid regions,
and is endemic throughout the western and southwestern United
States (Cook 1967). The leafhopper vector feeds and breeds on an
extensive range of plant families that vary by location and season
(Douglass and Cook 1954). The beet leafhopper often overwinters
on different winter annual weeds (Carter 1930, Hills 1937). In
southern New Mexico, the beet leafhopper has been found to over-
winter on annual mustards such as London rocket (Sisymbrium irio
L.) (Ray et al. 2005), moving onto summer annual weeds such as ko-
chia (Kochia scoparia) in the late spring (Davis 2010, Dobey 2017,
Creamer 2020).
The beet leafhopper has been shown to feed on crop plants that it
does not prefer and on which it cannot complete its life cycle. Hudson
et al. (2010) found that while leafhoppers will feed on chile peppers and
tomato plants, the leafhopper does not lay many eggs on the plants and
the eggs that are laid do not hatch. Adult leafhoppers caged onto chile
pepper plants for 24 h showed greater than 90% mortality. Munyaneza
and Upton (2005) found that leafhopper mortality was very high when
caged on bean (95%) and tomato (65%) for less than a week.
Leafhoppers collected from different locations can have differing
feeding preferences. Hudson et al. (2010) showed that in cafeteria-
style plant choice tests of beet leafhoppers collected from California
and New Mexico, 88% of California leafhoppers selected sugar
beets, while 47% of the New Mexico leafhoppers chose kochia.
Neither population of leafhopper preferred chile or tomato, with the
New Mexico leafhoppers choosing chile at 1.5% and tomato at 4%
for the same tests.
The beet leafhopper is the sole vector of beet curly top virus
(BCTV) in North America. BCTVs (Curtovirus) are generally
phloem limited in their host and are transmitted in a persistent cir-
culative manner by the beet leafhopper (Soto and Gilbertson 2003).
Circulifer tenellus transmits curtoviruses very efficiently after feeding
on infected plants for 2 days; feeding shorter times (2–20 min) still
produces low levels of virus transmission (Bennett 1971). The virus
requires a 4-h latent period in the insect before it can be transmitted.
The virus does not replicate in the leafhopper and is not transmitted
transovarially (Soto and Gilbertson 2003). Leafhoppers can inocu-
late the virus into healthy plants by feeding for as little as 15 min.
Leafhoppers retain the ability to transmit virus for days to weeks.

© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: 1
journals.permissions@oup.com.
2 Environmental Entomology, 2023, Vol. XX, No. XX
Generally, young plants are most susceptible to curtovirus infection
and transmission efficiency increases with number of leafhoppers
that feed on the plants (Wang et al. 1999).
Analyses of beet leafhopper feeding using electrical penetration
graph waveforms demonstrated that salivation while feeding on the
phloem is correlated with inoculation of BCTV to 3- to 5-wk-old
sugar beets (Stafford et al. 2009). Unlike many other phloem-feeding
insects, beet leafhoppers do not need to salivate into phloem before
ingesting phloem sap, they ingest phloem sap very slowly, and they
ingest from xylem for longer periods (Stafford and Walker 2009).
Curtoviruses have very large host ranges of weeds and crops,
causing disease to irrigated agriculture throughout the western
United States (California, Idaho, Arizona, Washington, Oregon,
New Mexico, Texas) and Mexico. Losses due to curtoviruses are
routinely found in sugar beets (Beta vulgaris L.), tomatoes (Solanum
lycopersicum L.), dry beans (Phaseolis spp.), peppers (Capsicum
spp.), melons, spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) (Bennett 1971, Creamer
et al. 2003, Strausbaugh et al. 2008, Chen et al. 2010, Chen and
Gilbertson 2016), and hemp (Giladi et al 2020). Curtovirus infec-
tion has been identified in weed species in New Mexico including
Russian thistle (Salsola tragus L.), prostrate pigweed (Amaranthus
blitoides S. Wats.), spurred anoda (Anoda cristata (L.) Schlecht.), ko-
chia (K. scoparia (L.) Schrad.), Chenopodium sp., morningglory sp.
(Ipomea sp.), Datura sp., and London rocket (Sisymbrium irio L.)
(Creamer et al. 2003, Lam et al. 2009). Of these, London rocket and
kochia were most frequently infected. Unlike crop plants, none of
the infected weeds showed symptoms of the disease.
Since beet leafhoppers feed on plant species upon which they
cannot complete their life cycles, they can also transmit BCTV to such
plants. In New Mexico, curly top symptoms have been identified in
chile pepper, tomato, bean, spinach, and cucurbits (Creamer 2020).
When curtoviruses infect chile pepper, the plant ceases to grow in
height, causing severe stunting. Infected plants have stiff stems and
chlorotic, brittle leaves (Creamer 2023). Symptoms of curly top in
tomatoes include stunted plants with thin, curled leaves and se-
verely decreased fruit production (Bennett 1971, Creamer 2020).
Curly top has been identified in chile pepper in west Texas, eastern
Arizona, and central Mexico (Creamer and Valle Vasquez 2015) and
in tomatoes in California, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and cen-
tral Mexico (Bennett 1971, Chen et al. 2010, Creamer 2020). Curly
top has been reported infecting hemp in Arizona (Hu et al. 2021),
Colorado (Giladi et al. 2020, Chinginsky et al. 2021), California
(Melgarejo et al. 2022), Nevada (McGue et al. 2021), Oregon (Frost
and Ocamb 2023), and Washington (Jarugula et al. 2023). Symptoms
of BCTV on hemp are varied, but include stunted plants with thin
curled leaves, chlorosis, mottling, and thickened bushy plants with
symptoms differing among plants and locations (Giladi et al. 2020,
Chinginsky et al. 2021, Hu et al. 2021, Melgarejo et al. 2022).
Curtoviruses, family Geminiviridae, are considered variants of
BCTV (Varsani et al. 2014). Many of the strains are recombinants.
A recent survey of BCTV in sugar beets in the western United States
identified 11 strains of curtoviruses (Strausbaugh et al. 2017).
Curtoviruses previously identified in New Mexico are now desig-
nated as BCTV-SvrPep, BCTV-Wor, BCTV-PeYD, and BCTV-PeCT
(Creamer et al. 2005, Lam et al. 2009, Peinado et al. 2018). Some
of the strains appear to be host specific. BCTV-PeCT replicates to
higher levels in peppers than in sugarbeets, while BCTV-Svr replicates
to higher levels in sugarbeets and causes very mild symptoms in
peppers (Peinado et al. 2018).
The BCTV strains present in a particular location change over
time and are often found as mixtures of strains. After a large epidemic
of curly top in tomatoes in 2013 in California, new strains including
BCTV-CO (a BCTV-Wor-like recombinant originally identified from
Colorado sugar beets) and BCTV-LH71 (a recombinant originally
identified from leafhoppers from California) predominated (Chen
and Gilbertson 2016). A 2012–2015 survey of sugar beets showed
a large number infected with BCTV-CO (Strausbaugh et al. 2017).
The same isolate was identified in 2018 in southern New Mexico
infecting sugar beets but was not found on chile grown nearby
(Creamer 2020). BCTV was characterized from leafhoppers col-
lected in northern Oregon in 2007–2009 (Rondon et al. 2016).
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ee/nvad069/7227785 by Agrosavia user on 22 November 2023
The great majority of the insects carried BCTV-Wor or a BCTV-
Wor recombinant. BCTV strains identified infecting hemp include
BCTV-CO from Colorado, Arizona, California, and Washington,
and BCTV-Wor from California, Arizona, and Washington (Giladi
et al. 2020, Chinginsky et al. 2021, Hu et al. 2021, Melgarejo et al.
2022, Jarugula et al. 2023).
We have monitored beet leafhopper presence in southern New
Mexico using yellow sticky traps since 2001 (Creamer et al. 2003,
Lehnhoff and Creamer 2020). The traps are placed at the margins of
chile fields and are changed every 2 wk. Traps provide information
on localized movement of adult beet leafhoppers, since only adults
fly, and are known to fly in low wind conditions. Leafhopper trap
counts have generally correlated with curly top incidence in that large
numbers of leafhoppers have been collected in years with high curly
top levels. Trap counts show that adult leafhoppers initially move
from mid-April to early May every year (Lehnhoff and Creamer
2020). This time corresponds with the dry down of London rocket
and other winter annual weeds. Leafhopper trap count numbers de-
crease in late October to early November, which corresponds to the
end of dry down of summer annual weeds such as kochia. Years with
heavy monsoon rains (July–mid-September) corresponded to lower
leafhopper numbers midseason, which would be expected since the
leafhopper prefers arid to semiarid conditions (Creamer 2020).
Hemp is a relatively new crop for New Mexico, with the first
permits for growth issued in 2019. In the United States, hemp is
grown for grain, fiber, or cannabidiol (CBD) production. In New
Mexico, the crop is grown almost exclusively for CBD production.
While hemp grown for CBD has been shown to be a host for BCTV,
the impact of the disease on other types of hemp has not been tested.
In addition, although curly top can cause economic losses in New
Mexico, the impact of the beet leafhopper and curly top in hemp has
not been determined.
Materials and Methods
Hemp Plantings
The primary hemp plots used in this study were grown at Leyendecker
Plant Science Research Center, Las Cruces, NM (lat. 32.196920°N,
long. 106.743960°W, elevation 1,173 m), abbreviated hereafter as
Leyendecker. Table 1 shows plant and harvest dates. In 2021, clones
of CBD-type hemp, var. Sweetened and var. The Wife were provided
by Rich Global and transplanted into randomized six 30-ft (9-m)
rows. Grain-type hemp, var. Anka and var. Altair (from Horizon
Hemp Seeds) and var. Earlina (from Marguerite Bolt at Purdue
University) were sown into 6 alternating 30-ft (9-m) rows (one
row each). Fiber-type hemp, var. MS-77 (from EcoFibre and Bish
Enterprises) was sown into three 30-ft (9-m) rows between the grain
varieties.
In 2022, clones of CBD-type hemp, var. Sweetened and var. The
Wife (provided by Rich Global) were transplanted into 6 alternating
15-ft (4.5-m) rows in 2 blocks (3 rows each per block). Seeds of grain
hemp, var. Orion 33 and var. Felina 32 (KonopiUS) were sown into
6 alternating 15-ft (4.5-m) rows in 2 blocks (3 rows each per block).
Environmental Entomology, 2023, Vol. XX, No. XX
Table 1. Planting and harvest dates for hemp trials at 3 New Mexico locations in 2021 and 2022
Location Year Planting date
Leyendecker 2021 26 May
2022 18 April
Los Lunas 2021 24 June
2022 4 May
Alcalde 2021 16 July
2022 13 May
Seeds of fiber hemp, var. Future 83 (KonopiUS) were sown into three
20-ft (6-m) rows. Plants were harvested on 13 September. In both
years, all CBD-type plants were planted with 3 ft (1-m) spacing; all
grain and fiber-type plants were sown at a rate of 40 lb./acre (45
kg/ha). In both years, the entire hemp planting was surrounded by
sorghum sudan (Sorghum × drummondii): 2 rows on either side
of 2 fallow rows and 7-ft (2-m) plantings on the ends of the rows.
Sorghum sudan was topped around 2 months after planting and was
not allowed to go to seed.
Plots were equipped with drip irrigation. One block was
subjected to water-stress conditions as a result of receiving 50%
fewer irrigations than the control plot. Fertigation with MiracleGro
all-purpose liquid fertilizer (12-4-8) was applied approximately
every 2 wk. No herbicides or pesticides were used; all weed control
was done by hand.
Hemp plots were grown at the Agricultural Science Center at
Los Lunas, Los Lunas, NM (lat. 34.768073°N, long. 106.760900°W,
elevation 1,475 m), hereafter abbreviated as Los Lunas, and the
Alcalde Sustainable Agricultural Science Center, Alcalde, NM (lat.
36.091697°N, long. 106.055709°W, elevation 1,738 m), abbrevi-
ated as Alcalde. Table 1 shows the plant and harvest dates. These
sites featured the same hemp varieties as Leyendecker (except Futura
83) and followed the same physical plot designs, including duplicate
blocks. Blocks at each location followed the same management as the
control Leyendecker plot. At Alcalde, the treatment of interest was
organic management. The duplicate plot received an OMRI-certified
organic fertilizer in place of the Miracle Gro with the fertilizer appli-
cation rate adjusted to provide the same amount of nitrogen to each
plot. At Los Lunas, both blocks received the same treatment as the
control plot at other sites.
Leafhopper Trapping
Four yellow sticky traps (20 × 25 cm) (Hummert International,
Earth City, MO) were placed approximately 60 cm from the ground
at the margins of the plots. For the hemp plots, the traps were
near the edges of the plantings, interior to or nearby the sorghum
sudan. Control traps were placed at the margins of chile fields at
Leyendecker, approximately 0.5 mile (800 m) away. Set of traps were
separated by a row of buildings, trees, and several roads. Both hemp
and control plots were bordered by the same levee road and pecans
on the west side. Traps were changed weekly April–June 2021, every
2 wk July–September 2021, and weekly April–August 2022. Traps
were counted, and leafhoppers were identified.
Beet Leafhopper Maintenance
The beet leafhoppers tested in this study were gifts from Carl
Strausbaugh, US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Kimberly, ID.
The leafhoppers were collected from different locations in Idaho and
reared for mass release. A 50 leafhopper subset of that collection was
used to establish a colony in New Mexico. Those beet leafhoppers
3
Harvest date Days in season
14 September 111
13 September 148
23 September 91
21 September 140
29 September 75
28 September 138
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ee/nvad069/7227785 by Agrosavia user on 22 November 2023
were reared on sugar beet plants maintained at 28 °C day/26 °C
night with a 16-h photoperiod in a Percival Model E54B growth
chamber. Seeds of sugarbeet, breeding line KDH4-9 were provided
by Kelly Richardson, USDA, Salinas, CA. The leafhoppers were in-
fectious with BCTV-Svr.
Beet Leafhopper Choice Tests
Hemp plants were placed into an insect cage that was 55 cm long,
46 cm wide, and 46 cm high. Plants were cuttings from plants from
the Leyendecker field plots described above. Cuttings were ap-
proximately 15–18 cm in length and included leaves, but not buds.
Cuttings were inserted into water in a flask. Parafilm was wrapped
around the stem to prevent drowning. Leafhoppers were released
in the middle of the cages and were given free choice to move to
any plant for 12 h. After 12 h, each plant was carefully removed
and the number of leafhoppers on each plant (or the cage walls)
was counted. The experiment compared preference for cuttings from
the 2021 plots, hemp vars. Sweetened, Anka, and MS-77 and chile
pepper var. NM-64. The experiment was repeated 3 times with 7
leafhoppers, with new plant materials and leafhoppers in each
trial. A 1-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of lo-
cation (each plant type or cage) on leafhopper choice (numbers of
leafhoppers). Tukey’s HSD was used to compare the location means.
BCTV Detection and Identification
BCTV presence was detected in hemp plants from all locations by
the New Mexico State University Plant Diagnostic Laboratory using
an AmpliFire isothermal fluorometer (Agdia, Elkhart, IN). Detection
of BCTV from hemp and chile collected from Leyendecker was also
accomplished using polymerase chain reaction (PCR). DNA was
extracted from plants using a modified Dellaporta method (Creamer
et al. 2003). Amplification of viral DNA was done using a PCR master
mix, with Taq polymerase (Omega Biotech) and primers for BCTV
2RepF1: 5ʹ-ATAGTC CAGGACTTAAGGGCTTC-3ʹ, 2RepR1,
5ʹ-CAA CTTCCAGGGAGCAAAATC-3ʹ with an annealing temper-
ature of 57 °C (Lam et al. 2009), or primers for BCTV-PeCT-CP gene
PeCTVcp F: 5ʹ-ATGTCGAGATTTACAAAAGGTA-3ʹ, PeCTVcp
R: 5ʹ-CAATCTTCAATCTCG-3ʹ with an annealing temperature
of 60 °C (Nusayr 2020). PCR-positive amplicons were sequenced
by Molecular Cloning Laboratories (MCLab, San Francisco, CA).
Sequences from both primers were aligned and compared to known
BCTV strains using the Nucleotide Blast function of NCBI.
Results
Beet leafhoppers were found in yellow sticky traps collected in
both 2021 and 2022 at all 3 locations. There were substantially
more leafhoppers collected in 2022 than in 2021 (Table 2). At
the Leyendecker location, there were more beet leafhoppers col-
lected from yellow sticky cards surrounding chile pepper than
4 Environmental Entomology, 2023, Vol. XX, No. XX

surrounding hemp on 4 June, 11 June, and 23 July 2021. There
were slightly more leafhoppers collected from cards surrounding
hemp on 14 May and 16 September 2021 (Fig. 1). There were more
total leafhoppers collected from cards surrounding chile than hemp
in 2021 (Table 2). In 2022, more leafhoppers were collected sur-
rounding hemp than chile at all dates except 20 May and 3 June
(Fig. 2). An overall higher total numbers of leafhoppers were col-
lected from cards surrounding hemp than from those surrounding
chile (Table 2).
BCTV symptoms on hemp were not noted in 2021 from any lo-
cation. In 2022, symptoms of BCTV were noted on CBD hemp from
all 3 locations, as well as on fiber hemp from Leyendecker. CBD
hemp plants, var. The Wife, from all 3 locations were verified using
AmpliFire system as containing BCTV (Table 3). All hemp varieties
grown at Leyendecker were verified as containing BCTV using the
same system.
PCR for BCTV was carried out on symptomatic hemp plants
grown at Leyendecker (Table 3). Hemp plants without symptoms of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ee/nvad069/7227785 by Agrosavia user on 22 November 2023

BCTV, or with symptoms of root rot, were negative for BCTV. PCR
amplicons from BCTV-positive plants from Leyendecker showed
Table 2. Beet leafhopper numbers identified from yellow sticky
traps at 3 New Mexico locations in 2021 and 2022 BCTV-Wor and BCTV-PeYD in both CBD varieties, while BCTV-
Wor was identified from a single symptomatic fiber hemp plant
Total number of (Table 3). Chile plants grown nearby were infected with the same
leafhoppers trapped 2 strains, BCTV-Wor and BCTV-PeYD, and an additional strain,
BCTV-PeCT, not detected in the hemp.
Location Plant type 2021 2022
From the leafhopper choice test, a 1-way ANOVA gave a statisti-
Leyendecker Hemp 474 2,855 cally significant difference in leafhopper numbers between at least 2
Chile 705 1,485 groups (F (4, 10) = [7.25], P = 0.005). Tukey’s HSD test for multiple
Los Lunas Hemp 52 443 comparisons found that the mean values for beet leafhopper num-
Alcalde Hemp 4 52 bers were statistically different (P = 0.05) for those found on CBD
or fiber hemp varieties or cage than on chile pepper or grain hemp
Yellow sticky traps were monitored during hemp growing season. (Table 4).

Fig. 1. Beet leafhoppers collected from yellow sticky traps in 2021 from around chile pepper plots and hemp plots at Leyendecker Plant Science Center, Las
Cruces, NM.

Fig. 2. Beet leafhoppers collected from yellow sticky traps in 2022 from around chile pepper plots and hemp plots at Leyendecker Plant Science Center, Las
Cruces, NM.
Environmental Entomology, 2023, Vol. XX, No. XX 5

Discussion found in chile than in hemp in 2021 and the reverse in 2022. The
timing of peaks in leafhopper trap catches did not correlate between
The beet leafhopper fed on and was associated with hemp in New
the 2 yr. The higher number of leafhoppers found in chile in June
Mexico. This was demonstrated through the trapping of beet
2021 compared to hemp is likely due to the very late planting date
leafhoppers in and around hemp fields in several locations and the
(26 May) for hemp in 2021. The hemp plants were very small in June
transmission of BCTV to those hemp plants. The numbers of beet
2021 compared to moderate-sized chile transplanted a month earlier.
leafhoppers trapped in hemp varied by location and year. More
The large numbers of leafhoppers trapped early in 2022 correlated
leafhoppers were trapped in 2022 than in 2021. While the trapping
with a high number of BCTV-infected plants. Young plants have been
season was longer in 2022 than 2021, the differential in leafhopper
shown to be more susceptible than older plants to beet leafhopper

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ee/nvad069/7227785 by Agrosavia user on 22 November 2023

numbers between the years was noted in chile as well as hemp at the
feeding and to curly top infection and damage (Creamer 2020).
Leyendecker location. The higher numbers of leafhoppers in 2022
The leafhopper choice test results confirmed previous results that
also correlated with a higher level of BCTV-infected plants found
chile pepper is not a preferred host (Hudson et al. 2010). The choice
in 2022.
test results (Table 4) suggest that the beet leafhoppers preferred CBD
Comparing leafhopper trap counts from a particular location
hemp and fiber hemp over grain hemp. Those results correlated
is essential. For example, leafhopper trap counts from chile pepper
somewhat with the BCTV detection in CBD hemp from all 3 field
grown at Leyendecker in 2020 with those from a hemp field at a
locations. The results found in the choice tests showed that the beet
different Las Cruces site were significantly different. There were
leafhopper did not strongly favor hemp and chose the cage wall over
more leafhoppers collected (973) from the first collection date (5
a hemp plant.
June 2020) from traps near the chile field than there were for the
Two strains of BCTV were detected in hemp from Leyendecker,
entire season (June–September 2020) from the hemp field (287).
BCTV-Wor and BCTV-PeYDV. Both strains were identified from
Our results here confirm that the beet leafhopper population pres-
chile pepper grown at the same location; however, an additional
sure is consistently higher at the Leyendecker location than at other
strain BCTV-PeCT was found in chile. This suggests that there is
locations, which has been noted for the 14 yr of trapping at that
strain specificity within curly top strains and confirms that BCTV-
location (Lehnhoff and Creamer 2020). The higher number of
PeCT is somewhat host specific to pepper (Peinado et al. 2018).
leafhoppers at Leyendecker also correlated with the results that all
This is the first report of PeYD-infecting hemp. BCTV-Wor has
varieties of hemp grown in 2022 at Leyendecker were infected with
been found infecting hemp in most locations (Giladi et al. 2020,
BCTV.
Chinginsky et al. 2021, Hu et al. 2021, Melgarejo et al. 2022,
The number of leafhoppers trapped in chile peppers and hemp
Jarugula et al. 2023).
varied between 2021 and 2022. There were more beet leafhoppers

Table 3. BCTV status of plants in 2022

BCTVa BCTV strainb

Location Plant type +/− BCTV-Wor BCTV-PeYD BCTV-PeCT

Leyendecker CBD, var. Sweetened + + (1/2) + (1/2)

CBD, var The Wife + + (3/4) + (1/4)
Fiber, var. Future 83 + + (1/1)
Grain, var. Orion 33 +
Grain, var. Felina 32 +
Chile pepper + (9/15) + (4/15) + (8/15)
Los Lunas CBD, var. The Wife +
Fiber
Grain
Alcalde CBD, var. The Wife +
Fiber
Grain

a
Detection (+/−) using Amplifire system. Two plants were tested from each location of each type of hemp.
b
Virus strain assessment from symptomatic plants with nucleic acid sequencing of PCR amplicons.

Table 4. Beet leafhopper choice test among hemp types with chile pepper

Number of leafhoppers found

Location after 12 h Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Means

CBD hemp ‘Sweetened’ 3 2 2 2.3 a

Fiber hemp ‘Anka’ 2 2 2 2.0 a
Grain hemp ‘MS-77 0 0 1 0.3 b
Chile pepper ‘NM-64 1 0 0 0.3 b
Cage 1 3 2 2.0 a

Choice tests began with 7 leafhoppers for each trial. One-way ANOVA between at least 2 groups (F (4, 10) = [7.25], P = 0.005). Means followed by different
letters are significantly different (Tukey, P = 0.05).
6 Environmental Entomology, 2023, Vol. XX, No. XX
Acknowledgments
We thank the farm managers for managing the growth of hemp in-
cluding Dave Lowry (Leyendecker Plant Science Research Center),
Ryan Garcia (Agricultural Science Center at Los Lunas), and
Rob Heyduck (Alcalde Sustainable Agricultural Science Center).
We thank Jayme Yancy and Nina Dropcho for their help with
collecting leafhopper traps and planting hemp. We thank Philip
Lujan, NMSU Diagnostic Laboratory, for collecting traps from
Los Lunas. We thank the NMSU AES for funding the field plots
in 2021. We thank Western Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education (WSARE), an agency of the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA), for funding the field plots in 2022 as
part of graduate student project GW21-220. USDA is an equal-
opportunity employer and service provider. Any opinions, findings,
conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are
those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of
the US Department of Agriculture. We thank the Foundation for
Food and Agricultural Research (FFAR) for funding leafhopper
collections.
Author Contributions
Rebecca Creamer (Conceptualization-Equal, Funding acquisition-
Equal, Investigation-Equal, Methodology-Equal, Project
administration-Equal, Supervision-Equal,Writing – original draft-Lead,
Writing – review & editing-Equal), Annabel Simpson (Investigation-
Equal), Hanah Rheay (Conceptualization-Equal, Funding acquisition-
Equal, Investigation-Equal, Supervision-Equal, Writing – review &
editing-Equal), Catherine Brewer (Conceptualization-Equal, Funding
acquisition-Equal, Project administration-Equal, Supervision-Equal,
Writing – review & editing-Equal)
References
Bennett CW. The curly top disease of sugarbeet and other plants. Monograph
No 7. St. Paul (MN): American Phytopathological Society; 1971.
Carter W. Ecological studies of the beet leaf hopper. Technical Bulletin 206.
Washington (DC): United States Department of Agriculture; 1930. p. 115.
Chen L, Brannigan K, Clark R, Gilbertson R. Characterization of curtoviruses
associated with curly top disease of tomato in California and monitoring
for these viruses in beet leafhoppers. Plant Dis. 2010:94:99–108.
Chen L-F, Gilbertson RL. Transmission of curtoviruses (beet curly top virus)
by the beet leafhopper (Circulifer tenellus). In: Brown JK, editor. Vector
mediated transmission of plant pathogens. St. Paul (MN): American
Phytopathological Society; 2016. p. 243–262.
Chinginsky J, Langemeier K, MacWilliams J, Albrecht T, Cranshaw W,
Fulladolsa AC, Kapuscinski M, Stenglein M, Nachappa P. First insights
into the virus and viroid communities in hemp (Cannabis sativa). Front
Agron. 2021:3:778433.
Cook WC. Life history, host plants, and migrations of the beet leafhopper
in the western United States. Technical Bulletin 1365. Washington (DC):
USDA; 1967. p. 122.
Creamer R. Beet curly top virus transmission, epidemiology, and management.
In: Awasthi LP, editor. Applied plant virology: advances, detection, and
antiviral strategies. San Diego (CA): Elsevier; 2020. p. 521–527.
Creamer R. Viral diseases of bell pepper. Chapter 3.2.6. In: Awasthi LP, editor.
Viral diseases of field and horticultural crops. San Diego (CA): Elsevier;
2023.
Creamer R, Carpenter J, Rascon J. Incidence of the beet leafhopper, Circulifer
tenellus (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) in New Mexico. Southwest Entomol.
2003:28:177–182.
Creamer R, Hubble H, Lewis A. Curtovirus infection of chile pepper in
New Mexico. Plant Dis. 2005:89(5):480–486. https://doi.org/10.1094/
pd-89-0480
Creamer R, Valle Vasquez R. Curtovirus infection of peppers in Mexico and
New Mexico. In: Virus y fitoplasmas de chile: una perspectiva regional.
Libro tecnico no. 10. Campo Experimental Zacatecas. Mexico (DF):
CIRNOC-INIFAP; 2015. p. 239–256, 279.
Davis G. Seasonal phenology of the beet leafhopper, Neoaliturus tenellus
(Ball) (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae), on London rocket, Sysimbrium irio L.,
and kochia, Kochia scoparia (L.), Schrader, in southern New Mexico [MS
Thesis]. Las Cruces (NM): New Mexico State University; 2010.
Dobey Q. Kochia germination requirements and the beet leafhopper prefer-
ence towards kochia [M.S. Thesis]. New Mexico State University; 2017.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ee/nvad069/7227785 by Agrosavia user on 22 November 2023
Douglass JR, Cook WC. The beet leafhopper. Circular 942. Washington (DC):
US Department of Agriculture; 1954. p. 21.
Frost K, Ocamb CM. Hemp (Cannabis sativa)—curly top. In: Pscheidt JS,
Ocamb CM, editors. Pacific Northwest plant disease management hand-
book. Corvallis (OR): Oregon State University; 2023. p. 25111.
Giladi Y, Hadad L, Luria N, Cranshaw W, Lachman O, Dombrovsky A.
First report of beet curly top virus infecting Cannabis sativa in western
Colorado. Plant Dis. 2020:104(3):999. https://doi.org/10.1094/
pdis-08-19-1656-pdn
Hills OA. The beet leafhopper in the central Columbia River breeding area. J
Agric Res. 1937:55:21–31.
Hu J, Masson R, Dickey L. First report of beet curly top virus infecting in-
dustrial hemp (Cannabis sativa) in Arizona. Plant Dis. 2021:105(4):1233.
https://doi.org/10.1094/pdis-11-20-2330-pdn
Hudson A, Richman DB, Escobar I, Creamer R. Comparison of the feeding
behavior and genetics of beet leafhopper (Circulifer tenellus, Baker)
populations from California and New Mexico. Southwest Entomol.
2010:35(3):241–250. https://doi.org/10.3958/059.035.0303
Jarugula S, Wagstaff C, Mitra A, Crowder DW, Gang DR, Naidu RA. First
reports of beet curly top virus, citrus yellow vein-associated virus, and hop
latent viroid in industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa) in Washington State.
Plant Dis. 2023:107. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-12-22-2981-PDN
Lam N, Creamer R, Rascon J, Belfon R. Characterization of a new curtovirus,
pepper yellow dwarf virus, from chile pepper and distribution in weed
hosts in New Mexico. Arch Virol. 2009:154(3):429–436. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00705-009-0320-1
Lehnhoff E, Creamer R. Prediction of early season beet leafhopper populations
in southern New Mexico. Plant Health Progress. 2020:21(1):71–76.
https://doi.org/10.1094/php-08-19-0051-fi
McGue L, Lane K, Robinson ML, McCoy J, Morawska M, Anderson J,
Lombard K, Leas L, Masson R, O’Callaghan AO. Industrial hemp white
paper growing hemp in the American Southwest. FS-21-98. Reno (NV):
Extension, University of Nevada, Reno; 2021.
Melgarejo TA, Chen LF, Rojas MR, Schilder A, Gilberson RL. Curly top
disease of hemp (Cannabis sativa) in California is caused by mild-
type strains of beet curly top virus often in mixed infection. Plant Dis.
2022:106:3022–3026.
Munyaneza JE, Upton JE. Beet leafhopper (Hemiptera: Cicadelliae) settling be-
havior, survival, and reproduction on selected host plants. J Econ Entomol.
2005:98(6):1824–1830. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-0493-98.6.1824
Nusayr T. Characterization of a GroEL-like protein from Candidatus Sulcia
muelleri, an endosymbiont of beet leafhopper, and its interaction with
geminivirus protein [PhD Dissertation]. Las Cruces (NM): New Mexico
State University; 2020.
Peinado SA, Achata Bottger J, Chen L-F, Gilbertson RL, Creamer R. Evidence
of curtovirus competition and synergy in co-infected plant hosts. Afr J
Microbiol Res. 2018:12:254–262.
Ray J, Creamer R, Schroeder J, Murray L. Moisture and temperature
requirements for London rocket (Sisymbrium irio) emergence. Weed Sci.
2005:53(2):187–192. https://doi.org/10.1614/ws-04-150r1
Rondon SI, Roster MS, Hamlin LL, Green KJ, Karasev AV, Crosslin JM.
Characterization of Beet curly top virus strains circulating in beet
leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) in northeastern Oregon. Plant Dis.
2016:100(8):1586–1590. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-10-15-1189-RE
Soto MJ, Gilbertson RL. Distribution and rate of movement of the curtovirus
Beet mild curly top virus (Family Geminiviridae) in the beet leaf-
hopper. Phytopathology. 2003:93(4):478–484. https://doi.org/10.1094/
PHYTO.2003.93.4.478
Environmental Entomology, 2023, Vol. XX, No. XX
Stafford CA, Walker GP. Characterization and correlation of DC electrical
penetration graph waveforms with feeding behavior of beet leafhopper,
Circulifer tenellus. Entomol Exp Appl. 2009:130:113–129.
Stafford CA, Walker GP, Creamer R. Stylet penetration behavior resulting in
inoculation of beet severe curly top virus by beet leafhopper, Circulifer
tenellus. Entomol Exp Appl 2009:130:130–137.
Strausbaugh CA, Eujayl IA, Wintermantel WM. Beet curly top virus strains
associated with sugar beet in Idaho, Oregon, and a Western U.S. col-
lection. Plant Dis. 2017:101(8):1373–1382. https://doi.org/10.1094/
PDIS-03-17-0381-RE
7
Strausbaugh CA, Wintermantel WM, Gillen AM, Eujayl IA. Curly top survey
in the western United States. Phytopathology. 2008:98(11):1212–1217.
https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-98-11-1212
Varsani A, Martin DP, Navas-Castillo J, Moriones E, Hernandez-Zepeda C,
Idris A, Zerbini FM, Brown JK. Revisiting the classification of curtoviruses
based on genome-wide pairwise identity. Arch Virol. 2014:159:1873–
1882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-014-1982-x
Wang H, Gurusinghe P. de A., Falk BW. Systemic insecticides and plant age
affect Beet curly top virus transmission to selected host plants. Plant Dis.
1999:83:351–355.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ee/nvad069/7227785 by Agrosavia user on 22 November 2023