Skip to main content
Log in

Hostplant, larval age, and feeding behavior influence midgut pH in the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar)

  • Original Papers
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The midgut pH of late instar gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar L.) larvae is strongly alkaline, and varies with diet, larval stadium, and time since feeding. Midgut pH rises with time since feeding, and does so more quickly, reaching greater maximum values, on some diets than others. Leaf tissues of 23 tree species resist increases in alkalinity differentially; this trait and differing initial leaf pH may explain the impact of diet on gut pH. Third instar larvae may have gut conditions favorable for tannin-protein binding shortly after ingesting certain foods, but with time midgut alkalinity becomes great enough to dissociate tannin-protein complexes. Older instars rarely exhibit gut pHs low enough to permit tannin activity. Alkaline gut conditions may explain the gypsy moth's ability to feed on many tanniniferous plant species, especially in later instars. Consequences for pathogen effectiveness are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Berenbaum M (1980) Adaptive significance of midgut pH in larval Lepidoptera. Am Nat 115:138–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradford M (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantification of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 72: 248–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks GT (1977) Epoxide hydratase as a modifier of biotransformation and biological activity. Gen Pharmacol 8:221–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman RF (1971) The Insects — Structure and Function. American Elsevier, NY, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ (1983) The Dynamics of Animal-Plant Interactions, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeny P (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defense. Recent Adv Phytochem 10:1–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Lance DR, Elkinton JS, Mastro VC, Schwalbe CP (1983) APHIS OTIS Methods Dey Ctr Annual Report, USDA, Otis Air National Guard Base, MA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Lechowicz MJ (1983) Leaf quality and the host preference of gypsy moth in the northern decidous forest, in: Talerico RL, Montgomery M (eds) Forest Defoliator-Host Interactions: A Comparison Between Gypsy Moth and Spruce Budworms. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-85. Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Broomall, PA, USA, pp 67–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard DE (1970) Feeding rhythm in larvae of the gypsy moth. J Econ Entomol 63:1454–1457

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis WD, Bataille J (1966) Plant phenolic compounds and the isolation of enzymes. Phytochemistry 5:423–438

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowry P, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ (1951) Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J Biol Chem 193:265–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin JS, Martin MM (1983) Precipitation of ribuluse-1, S-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase by tannic acid, quebracho, and oak foliage extracts. J Chem Ecol 9:285–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin MM, Martin JS (1984) Surfactants: their role in preventing the precipitation of proteins by tannins in insect guts. Oecologia (Berlin) 61:342–345

    Google Scholar 

  • Maufette Y, Lechowicz MJ, Jobin L (1983) Host preferences of the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (L.), in Sothern Quebec. Can J For Res 13:53–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Raven JA, Smith FA (1976) Cytoplasmic pH regulation and electrogenig H+ extrusion. Curr Adv Plant Sci 8:649–660

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades DF (1979) Evolution of plant chemical defense against herbivores. In: Rosenthal GA, Janzen DH (eds) Herbivores: Their Interaction With Secondary Plant Metabolites, Academic Press, NY, USA, pp 5–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz JC (1983) Impact of variable plant chemical defenses on insect susceptibility to parasites, predators, and diseases. Symp Am Chem Soc 208:37–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith FA, Raven JA (1979) Intracellular pH and its regulation. Ann Rev Plant Phys 30:289–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain T (1977) Secondary compounds as protection agents. Ann Rev Plant Physiol 28:479–501

    Google Scholar 

  • Turunen S (1979) Lipid digestion and uptake in insects. Comp Biochem Physiol 63A:455–460

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA (1981) The Gypsy Moth: Research Toward Integrated Pest Management. Doane CC, McManus ML (eds) USDA FS Tech Bull 1584

  • Van Sumere CF, Albrecht J, Dedonder A, DePooter H, Pe I (1975) Plant proteins and phenolics. In: Harborne JB, Van Sumere CF (eds) The Chemistry and Biochemistry of Plant Proteins, Academic Press, NY, USA, pp 211–264

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schultz, J.C., Lechowicz, M.J. Hostplant, larval age, and feeding behavior influence midgut pH in the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar). Oecologia 71, 133–137 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377332

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377332

Key words

Navigation