Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:13:38.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in leaf hardness and moisture content of water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes, following feeding by Neochetina eichhorniae Warner (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

A. D. Wright ,
N. P. Boland  and
J. D. Kerr
A. D. Wright
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Entomology, Long Pocket Laboratories, Private Bag No. 3, Indooroopilly, Queensland 4068, Australia
N. P. Boland
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Entomology, Long Pocket Laboratories, Private Bag No. 3, Indooroopilly, Queensland 4068, Australia
J. D. Kerr
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Mathematics and Statistics, Long Pocket Laboratories, Private Bag No. 3, Indooroopilly, Quensland 4068, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Feeding by adults of Neochetina eichhorniae Warner on water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes, significantly increased the hardness of the lamina of the youngest leaf and the petioles of the youngest three leaves, while the moisture content of the petioles and laminae was significantly reduced. However, variations in leaf hardness did not significantly affect feeding by the weevils, and leaf age was considered to have a greater effect. The results help explain field observations of the relative abundances of N. eichhorniae and the pyralid Sameodes albiguttalis (Warren), which also attacks water hyacinth.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 79 , Issue 4 , November 1989 , pp. 529 - 535
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Buckingham, G. & Passoa, S. (1985). Flight muscle and egg development in waterhyacinth weevils.— pp. 497–510 in Delfosse, E. S. (Ed.). Proceedings of the VI International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 19–25 08 1984.—885 pp. Ottawa, Agric. Can.Google Scholar
Center, T. D. & Durden, W. C. (1981). Release and establishment of Sameodes albiguttalis for the biological control of waterhyacinth.—Environ. Entomol. 10, 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center, T. D. & Durden, W. C. (1986). Variation in waterhyacinth/weevil interactions resulting from temporal differences in weed control efforts.—J. Aquat. Plant Mgmt 24, 28–38.Google Scholar
DeLoach, C. J. (1975). Evaluation of candidate arthropods for biological control of waterhyacinth: studies in Argentina.—pp. 44–50in Brezonik, P. L. & Fox, J. L. (Eds). The proceedings of a Symposium on Water Quality Management through Biological Control, held 01 23–30, 1975 at the University of Florida.—164 pp. Gainesville, Dep. Environml Engng Sci., Univ. Florida.Google Scholar
DeLoach, C. J. & Cordo, H. A. (1976). Life cycle and biology of Neochetina bruchi, a weevil attacking waterhyacinth in Argentina, with notes on N. eichhorniae.—Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 69, 643–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLoach, C. J. & Cordo, H. A. (1978). Life history and ecology of the moth Sameodes albiguttalis, a candidate for biological control of waterhyacinth.—Environ. Entomol. 7, 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeny, P. (1976). Plant apparency and chemical defense.—pp. 1–40in Wallace, J. W. & Mansell, R. L. (Eds). Recent advances in phytochemistry. Vol. 10. Biochemical interactions between plants and herbivores.—425 pp. New York, Plenum.Google Scholar
Kogan, M. (1975). Plant resistance in pest management.—pp. 103–146in Metcalf, R. L. & Luckmann, W. H. (Eds). Introduction to insect pest management.—587 pp. New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
Hoffman, J. H. & Moran, V. C. (1977). Pre-release studies on Tucumania tapiacola Dyar (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), a potential biocontrol agent against jointed cactus.—J. ent. Soc. sth. Afr. 40, 205–209.Google Scholar
Kraft, S. K. & Denno, R. F. (1982). Feeding response of adapted and non-adapted insects to the defensive properties of Baccharis halimifolia L. (Compositae).—Oecologia 52, 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhoades, D. F. & Cates, R. G. (1976). Towards a general theory of plant antiherbivore chemistry.—pp. 168–213in Wallace, J. W. & Mansell, R. L. (Eds). Recent advances in phytochemistry. Vol. 10. Biochemical interactions between plants and herbivores.—425 pp. New York, Plenum.Google Scholar
Scriber, J. M. (1977). Limiting effects of low leaf-water content on the nitrogen utilization, energy budget, and larval growth of Hyalophora cecropia (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae).—Oecologia 28, 269–287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scriber, J. M. & Feeny, P. (1979). Growth of herbivorous caterpillars in relation to feeding specialization and to the growth form of their food plants.—Ecology 60, 829–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, P. A. (1974). Some investigations into the biology of Paulinia cuminata (De Geer) (Orthoptera: Acrididae) with particular reference to the biological control of Salvinia auriculata.—212 pp. M.Phil, thesis, Univ. London.Google Scholar
Wright, A. D. (1982). Progress towards biological control of water hyacinth in Australia.—pp. 31–33in Commonwealth Regional (Asia/Pacific) Rural Technology Programme. Report of the Regional Workshop on Biological Control of Water Hyacinth, 3–5 05 1982, NAL, Bangalore, India.—70 pp. London, Commonw. Sci. Coun. (CSC(82)RT-27).Google Scholar
Wright, A. D. (1984). Effect of biological control agents on water hyacinth in Australia.—pp. 823–833in Thyagarajan, G. (Ed.). Proceedings of the International Conference on Water Hyacinth, Hyderabad, India, 02. 7–11, 1983.—1005 pp. Nairobi, UN Environ. Prog.Google Scholar
Wright, A. D. & Bourne, A. S. (1986). Effect of leaf hardness on penetration of waterhyacinth by Sameodes albiguttalis.—J. Aquat. Plant Mgmt 24, 91–92.Google Scholar
Wright, A. D. & Fuller, S. C. (1984). A simple penetrometer for laboratory and field use.—Aust. entomol. Mag. 11, 13–15.Google Scholar