Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:59:56.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FEMALE SEX PHEROMONE IN KORSCHELTELLUS GRACILIS (GROTE) (LEPIDOPTERA: HEPIALIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

L.P.S. Kuenen ,
D.L. Wagner ,
W.E. Wallner  and
R.T. Cardé
L.P.S. Kuenen
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA 01003
D.L. Wagner
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA 06269
W.E. Wallner
Affiliation:
Northeast Forest Experiment Station, Hamden, Connecticut, USA 06514
R.T. Cardé*
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA 01003
*
1Author to whom reprint requests should be addressed.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In laboratory wind tunnel studies, quiescent Korscheltellus gracilis (Grote) females initiated wing fanning as light intensity was reduced to 25–11 lx at the end of a 16-h, 450-lx photophase. Males downwind of a wing-fanning female initiated wing fanning, rapid walking, or both, and upwind flight toward the female typically ensued shortly thereafter. Wing-fanning females whose abdomens had been removed, and excised hind wings of females evoked the same male responses, but females whose hind wings had been removed evoked no male response. The sex pheromone of K. gracilis evidently is released from the female’s hind wings, a so far unique site of pheromone release in female Lepidoptera. The importance of this finding to understanding the mating system of hepialids and the ancestral form of pheromone release among the Lepidoptera is considered.

Résumé

En soufflerie, des femelles immobiles de Korscheltellus gracilis (Grote) ont commencé à battre des ailes lorsque l’intensité lumineuse fût réduite à 25–11 lx, à la fin d’une photophase de 16 h à 450 lx. La réponse typique des mâles placés en aval d’une femelle battant des ailes a commencé soit par des battements d’ailes, ou une marche rapide, ou les deux, suivis par un vol en direction de la femelle. Des femelles dépourvues d’abdomen et battant des ailes, et des ailes postérieures isolées de femelles suscitèrent les mêmes réponses de la part des mâles, mais les femelles dépourvues d’ailes postérieures ne suscitèrent aucune réponse. La phéromone sexuelle de K. gracilis est manifestement émise au niveau des ailes postérieures des femelles, ce qui représente à ce jour un site unique d’émission de phéromone chez les femelles de lépidoptères. Nous discutons l’importance de cette découverte pour comprendre le système d’accouplement des Hépialidés et la forme primitive d’émission de phéromone chez les lépidoptères.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 126 , Issue 1 , February 1994 , pp. 31 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1994

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

Blair, W.G. 1918. On the “calling” attitude of Hepialus sylvinus. The Entomologist 51: 212.Google Scholar
Bosman, T., and Brand, J.M.. 1971. Biological studies of the sex pheromone of Kotochalia junodi Heyl. (Lepidoptera: Psychidae) and its partial purification. Journal of the Entomological Society of South Africa 34: 73–78.Google Scholar
Cardé, R.T., and Hagaman, T.R.. 1979. Behavioral responses of the gypsy moth in a wind tunnel to air-borne enantiomers of disparlure. Environmental Entomology 8: 475–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Götz, B. 1951. Die sexualduftstoffe an Lepidopteran. Experientia 7: 406–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grehan, J.R., Parker, B.L., Wagner, D.L., Rosovsky, J., and Aleong, J.. 1992. Root damage by the conifer swift moth: A mortality factor in montane red spruce regeneration. Forest Science 38: 611–622.Google Scholar
Hardy, R.J. 1973. The biology of Fraus simulans Walker (Lepidoptera: Hepialidae). Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 12: 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, R.N., Shorey, H.H., and Rubin, R.E.. 1968. Sex pheromones of noctuid moths. XVI. The morphology of the female sex pheromone glands of eight species. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 61: 861–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, J.G., Tobi, D.R., and Parker, B.L.. 1991. Spatial and temporal distribution of Korscheltellus gracilis larvae (Lepidoptera: Hepialidae) in the Green Mountains, Vermont. Environmental Entomology 20: 371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonhardt, B.A., Neal, J.W. Jr., Klun, J.A., Schwartz, M., and Palmer, J.R.. 1983. An unusual lepidopteran sex pheromone system in the bagworm moth. Science 219: 314–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loeb, M.J., Neal, J.W. Jr., and Klun, J.A.. 1989. Modified thoracic epithelium of the bagworm (Lepidoptera: Psychidae): Site of pheromone production in adult females. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 82: 215–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallet, J. 1984. Sex roles in the ghost moth Hepialus humuli (L.) and a review of mating in the Hepialidae (Lepidoptera). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 79: 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCabe, T.L., and Wagner, D.L.. 1989. The biology of Sthenopis auratus (Grote) (Lepidoptera: Hepialidae). Journal of the New York Entomological Society 97: 1–10.Google Scholar
McDunnough, J. 1911. Peculiar habits of a hepialid moth. The Canadian Entomologist 43: 289–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, E.S., Robinson, G.S., and Wagner, D.L.. 1994. Tentative checklist of world Exoporia (Mnesarchaeoidea and Hepialoidea). Invertebrate Taxonomy. In press.Google Scholar
Percy-Cunningham, J.E., and MacDonald, J.A.. 1987. Biology and ultrastructure of sex pheromone-producing glands. pp. 27–76 in Prestwich, G.D., and Blomquist, G.J. (Eds.), Pheromone Biochemistry. Academic Press, New York, NY. 575 pp.Google Scholar
Robson, J.E. 1887. On the flight and pairing of Hepialus sylvinus and lupulinus. Entomologist's Monthly Magazine 23: 214–215.Google Scholar
Schulz, S., Francke, W., König, W.A., Schurig, V., Mori, K., Kittman, R., and Schneider, D.. 1990. Male pheromone of swift moth, Hepialus hecta L. (Lepidoptera: Hepialidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology 16: 3511–3521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snedecor, G.W., and Cochran, W.G.. 1980. Statistical Methods. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. 507 pp.Google Scholar
Tobi, D.R., Leonard, J.G., Parker, B.L., and Wallner, W.E.. 1992. Survey methods, distribution, and seasonality of Korscheltellus gracilis (Grote) (Lepidoptera: Hepialidae) in the Green Mountains, Vermont. Environmental Entomology 21: 447–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tobi, D.R., Wallner, W.E., and Parker, B.L.. 1989. The conifer swift moth and spruce-fir decline. pp. 351–354 in Proceedings of the US-FGR Symposium: Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants on the Spruce–Fir Forests of the Eastern United States and Federal Republic of Germany. General Technical Report. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Broomall, PA. 489 pp.Google Scholar
Turner, J.R.G. 1976. Sexual behavior: Female swift moth is not the aggressive partner. Animal Behaviour 24: 188–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J.R.G. 1988. Sex, leks, and fechts in swift moths Hepialus (Lepidoptera Hepialidae): Evidence for the hot shot moth. The Entomologist 107: 90–95.Google Scholar
Wagner, D.L. 1985. The Biosystematics of the Holarctic Hepialidae, with Special Emphasis on the Hepialus californicus Species Group. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA (Dissertation Abstracts International # DA8610260). 391 pp.Google Scholar
Wagner, D.L. 1988. The taxonomic status of Korscheltellus Börner, 1925, in North America (Lepidoptera: Hepialidae). Journal of the New York Entomological Society 96: 345–354.Google Scholar
Wagner, D.L., and Rosovsky, J.R.. 1991. Mating systems in the primitive Lepidoptera, with emphasis on the reproductive behavior of Korscheltellus gracilis (Hepialidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 102: 277–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, D.L., Tobi, D., Parker, B.L., Wallner, W.E., and Leonard, J.G.. 1989. Immature stages and natural enemies of Korscheltellus gracilis (Lepidoptera, Hepialidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 82: 717–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, D.L., Tobi, D., Wallner, W.E., and Parker, B.L.. 1991. Korscheltellus gracilis (Grote): A pest of red spruce and balsam fir roots (Lepidoptera: Hepialidae). The Canadian Entomologist 123: 255–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallner, W.E., Wagner, D.L., Parker, B.L., and Tobi, D.R.. 1991. Bioecology of the conifer swift moth, Korscheltellus gracilis, a root feeder associated with spruce-fir decline. pp. 199–204 in Baranchikov, Y.N., Mattson, W.J., Hain, F.P., and Payne, T.L. (Eds.), Forest Insect Guilds: Patterns of Interaction with Host Trees. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forestry Service, General Technical Report NE–153: 400 pp.Google Scholar