Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:41:52.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

QUANTITATIVE RESPONSES OF MALES OF LIMONIUS CALIFORNICUS (COLEOPTERA: ELATERIDAE) TO FEMALE SEX PHEROMONE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

C. E. Lilly  and
A. J. McGinnis
C. E. Lilly
Affiliation:
Research Station, Canada Department of Agriculture, Lethbridge, Alberta
A. J. McGinnis
Affiliation:
Research Station, Canada Department of Agriculture, Lethbridge, Alberta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In adult virgin females of the sugar beet wireworm, Limonius californicus (Mannerheim), the sex attractant (recently identified as valeric acid) is found primarily in the fifth and sixth abdominal segments. Ether extracts of virgin females and of females that had been mated for not more than 4 hours prior to death contained the highest concentration of the attractant. The concentration of attractant in mated females decreased as the post-copulatory interval increased. In the laboratory maximum sexual response was elicited from males exposed to as little as 0.008 female equivalent of attractant. Numerous thin-walled sensoria are present on the eight distal segments of the male antennae and apparently function as chemoreceptors. Response of males to the attractant was not affected by bilateral amputation of the five distal segments, decreased progressively with the amputation of segments 6 and 7, and was eliminated upon removal of segment 8. Males of L. californicus responded only to extracts of females of that species whereas males of Limonius canus (LeConte) responded to extracts of females of both species.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 100 , Issue 10 , October 1968 , pp. 1071 - 1078
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1968

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

Dostal, B. 1958. Riechfahigkeit und Sahl der Riechsinneselemente bei der Honigbiene. Z. vergl. Physiol. 41: 179–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, J. A. 1965. Sex pheromone of the oriental fruit moth Grapholitha molesta (Busck) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Can. Ent. 97: 1002–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, M., Lilly, C. E., and Harding, C.. 1968. Sex attractant of sugar beet wireworm: identification and biological activity. Science 159: 208–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehman, R. S. 1932. Experiments to determine the attractiveness of various aromatic compounds to adults of the wireworms, Limonius (Pheletes) canus Lec. and Limonius (Pheletes) californicus (Mann.). J. econ. Ent. 25: 949–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lilly, C. E. 1959. Response of males of Limonius californicus (Mann.) (Coleoptera: Elateridae) to a sex attractant separable by paper chromatography. Can. Ent. 91: 145–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lilly, C. E., and McGinnis, A. J.. 1965. Reactions of male click beetles in the laboratory to olfactory pheromones. Can. Ent. 97: 317–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steward, C. C., and Atwood, C. E.. 1963. The sensory organs of the mosquito antenna. Can. J. Zool. 41: 577–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentine, J. M. 1931. The olfactory sense of the adult mealworm beetle Tenebrio molitor (Linn.). J. exp. Zool. 58: 165–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, D. R. A., Miller, G. L., and Wharton, M. L. 1954. The odorous attractant of the American cockroach, Periplaneta americana (L.). 1. Quantitative aspects of the response to the attractant. J. gen. Physiol. 37: 461–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, R. H. 1963. Chemical control of chosen insects. New Sci. 20: 598–600.Google Scholar
Yamasaki, T., and Narahashi, T.. 1959. The effect of potassium and sodium ions on the resting and action potentials of the cockroach giant axon. J. Insect Physiol. 3: 146–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar