Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:07:17.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ATTRACTION OF DIAMONDBACK MOTHS, PLUTELLA XYLOSTELLA (L.) (LEPIDOPTERA: PLUTELLIDAE), BY VOLATILE COMPOUNDS OF CANOLA, WHITE MUSTARD, AND FABA BEAN1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

P. Palaniswamy ,
C. Gillott  and
G.P. Slater
P. Palaniswamy*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 0W0
C. Gillott
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 0W0
G.P. Slater
Affiliation:
Plant Biotechnology Institute, 110 Gymnasium Road, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 0W9
*
2 Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The olfactory responses of male and female diamondback moths (Plutella xylostella [L.]) to leaf extracts of the following plants were examined by behavioral and electrophysiological tests: white mustard (Brassica hirta cv. Ochre); Argentine canola (B. napus cv. Regent, B. napus cv. Westar); Polish canola (B. campestris cv. Tobin); and faba bean (Vicia faba). In behavioral tests both two-choice and four-choice situations were used. All extracts attracted more moths than the control except for Regent canola extract which attracted males only. White mustard extract was about twice as attractive as that of Regent or faba bean. White mustard and faba bean extracts appeared slightly more attractive to females than to males. Oviposition was greatly stimulated by white mustard extract, but other extracts had no significant effect. Electroantennogram (EAG) tests showed that both male and female moths perceived the plant extracts through antennal receptors. Antennae of females gave a stronger EAG response than those of males, especially to white mustard and faba bean extracts.

Résumé

On a étudié les réponses olfactives des mâles et femelles de la fausse-teigne des crucifères (Plutella xylostella [L.]) à des extraits du feuillage des plantes suivantes, à l’aide de tests comportementaux et électrophysiologiques : la moutarde rude (Brassica hirta cv. Ochre); des canolas argentins (B. napus cv. Regent, B. napus cv. Westar); un canola polonais (B. campestris cv. Tobin); et la gourgane (Vicia faba). On a fait usage de tests comportementaux à deux et à quatre choix. Tous les extraits se sont avérés plus attractifs que le témoin sauf celui du canola Regent auquel seuls les mâles répondaient. L’extrait de moutarde était environ deux fois plus attractif que celui du canola Regent ou de la gourgane. Les extraits de moutarde et de gourgane semblaient un peu plus attractifs pour les femelles que pour les mâles. La ponte fut stimulée fortement par l’extrait de moutarde, mais les autres extraits n’avaient pas cet effet. Les antennogrammes ont montré que les mâles et les femelles perçoivent les odeurs des extraits par des récepteurs antennaires. Les antennes de femelles répondaient plus que celles des mâles, surtout aux extraits de moutarde et de gourgane.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 118 , Issue 12 , December 1986 , pp. 1279 - 1285
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1986

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.)

Footnotes

1

Issued as NRCC No. 26106.

References

Chisholm, M.D., Steck, W.F., Arthur, A.P., and Underhill, E.W.. 1975. Evidence for cis-11-hexadecen-1-ol acetate as a major component of the sex pheromone of the bertha armyworm, Mamestra configurata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Can. Ent. 107: 361–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fienberg, S.E. 1970. The analysis of multidimensional contingency tables. Ecology 51: 419–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finch, S. 1978. Volatile plant chemicals and their effect on host plant finding by the cabbage root fly, Delia brassicae. Ent. Exp. Appl. 24: 150–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finch, S., and Skinner, G.. 1982. Trapping cabbage root flies (Delia brassicae) in traps baited with plant extracts and with natural and synthetic isothiocyanates. Ent. Exp. Appl. 31: 133–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavora, J.S., Spinser, J.L., Hare, W.C.D., and Morse, P.M.. 1977. Genetic resistance to lymphoid tumor transplants. Poultry Sci. 56: 590–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guerin, P.M., Stadler, E., and Buser, H.R.. 1983. Identification of host plant attractants for the carrot fly, Psila rosae. J. Chem. Ecol. 9: 843–861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gupta, P.D., and Thorsteinson, A.J.. 1960 a. Food plant relationships of the diamondback moth (Plutella maculipennis [Curt.]). I. Gustation and olfaction in relation to botanical specificity of the larva. Ent. Exp. Appl. 3: 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, P.D., and Thorsteinson, A.J.. 1960 b. Food plant relationships of the diamondback moth (Plutella maculipennis [Curt.]). II. Sensory regulation of oviposition of the adult female. Ent. Exp. Appl. 3: 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harcourt, D.G. 1963. Major mortality factors in the population dynamics of the diamondback moth, Plutella maculipennis (Curt.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 32: 55–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkes, C., Patton, S., and Coaker, T.H.. 1978. Mechanisms of host plant finding in adult cabbage root fly, Delia brassicae. Ent. Exp. Appl. 24: 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J.R., and Strickler, K.L.. 1984. Finding and accepting host plants. In Bell, W.J., and Cardé, R.T. (Eds.), Chemical Ecology of Insects. Sinauer Associates Inc., Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Prokopy, R.J., Moericke, V., and Bush, G.L.. 1973. Attraction of apple maggot flies to odor of apple. Environ. Ent. 2: 743–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoonhoven, L.M. 1968. Chemosensory bases of host plant selection. Annu. Rev. Ent. 13: 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadler, E. 1978. Chemoreception of host plant chemicals by ovipositing females of Delia (Hylemya) brassicae. Ent. Exp. Appl. 24: 511–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorsteinson, A.J. 1953. The chemotactic responses that determine host specificity in an oligophagous insect (Plutella maculipennis [Curt.] Lepidoptera). Can. J. Zool. 31: 52–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traynier, R.M.M. 1967. Stimulation of oviposition by the cabbage root fly, Erioischia brassicae. Ent. Exp. Appl. 10: 401–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan, J.G., MacLeod, A.J., and Jones, B.M.G.. 1976. The biology and chemistry of the Cruciferae. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Vernon, R.S., Pierce, H.D., Borden, J.H., and Oehlschlager, A.C.. 1978. Host selection by Hylemya antiqua: identification of oviposition stimulants based on proposed active thioalkane moieties. Environ. Ent. 7: 728–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villani, M., and Gould, F.. 1985. Butterfly milkweed extract as a feeding deterrent of the wireworm, Melanotus communis. Ent. Exp. Appl. 37: 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar