Oecologia

, Volume 98, Issue 1, pp 76–82 | Cite as

The influence of proline on diet selection: sex-specific feeding preferences by the grasshoppers Ageneotettix deorum and Phoetaliotes nebrascensis (Orthoptera: Acrididae)

  • Spencer T. Behmer
  • Anthony Joern
Original Paper

Abstract

Diet selection based on the level of proline in an insect's host plant has been observed for a number of phytophagous insects, but few studies have examined potential differences in feeding preferences between males and females. The level of proline among an insect's host plants, particularly in drought-stressed plants, can be highly variable and often is positively correlated with soluble nitrogen levels. Additionally, proline is known to participate in a number of physiological functions in insects. We tested the effect of proline as a feeding stimulant in reproductively active grasshoppers using the graminivorous Ageneotettix deorum and the generalist, but mostly graminivorous, Phoetaliotes nebrascensis. Feeding preference tests using diets with representative free amino acid and sucrose levels but varying proline levels (zero, normal and 3 x normal) were examined. The feeding preference exhibited by both species was sex-specific, although the sex-specific response was more pronounced in P. nebrascensis than in A. deorum. Females of both species displayed preferences for diets high in proline. Males of neither species exhibited a preference for proline when responses were averaged over all treatment levels. However, within specific treatment combinations, male A. deorum preferred diets with high proline over diets with zero proline. These results suggest that diet selection for specific nutrients may vary between males and females because of differences in their physiological status and, possibly, differences in the nutritional requirements associated with reproduction. These results also suggest that subtle shifts in the concentration of individual nutrients within an insect's host plant may greatly influence insect feeding patterns.

Key words

Feeding preference Proline Choice tests Ageneotettix deorum Phoetaliotes nebrascensis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aspinall D, Paleg LG (1981) Proline accumulation: physiological aspects. In: Paleg LG, Aspinall D (eds) Physiology and biochemistry of drought resistance in plants. Academic Press, New York, pp 206–241Google Scholar
  2. Barnett NM, Naylor AW (1966) Amino acid and protein metabolism in bermuda grass during water stress. Plant Physiol 41:1222–1230Google Scholar
  3. Behmer ST (1993) The influence of free amino acids and sucrose on the feeding responses of two graminivorous grasshoppers. MS thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Behmer ST, Joern A (1993) Dietary selection by the generalist grasshopper, Phoetaliotes nebrascensis (Orthoptera: Acrididae) based on the need for phenylalanine. Funct Ecol 7:522–527Google Scholar
  5. Bently MD, Leonard DE, Leach S, Reynolds E, Stoddard W, Tomkinson B, Tomkinson D, Strunz G, Yatagai M (1982) Effect of some naturally occurring chemicals and extracts of non-host plants on feeding by spruce budworm larvae, Chroristoneura fumiferana. Maine Agric Exp Stn Tech Bull 107Google Scholar
  6. Bernays EA, Barbehenn R (1987) Nutritional ecology of grass foliage-chewing insects. In: Slansky F, Rodriquez JG (eds) Nutritional ecology of insects, mites, spiders and related invertebrates. Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 147–176Google Scholar
  7. Bernays EA, Simpson SJ (1982) Control of food intake. Adv Insect Physiol 16: 59–118Google Scholar
  8. Bernays EA, Simpson SJ (1990) Nutrition. In: Chapman RF, Joern A (eds) Biology of grasshoppers. Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 105–127Google Scholar
  9. Bokhari UG, Trent JD (1985) Proline concentration in water stressed grasses. J Range Manage 38:37–38Google Scholar
  10. Boys HA (1978) Food selection by Oedaleus senegalensis (Orthoptera: Acrididae) in grassland and millet fields. Entomol Exp Appl 24:78–86Google Scholar
  11. Bursell E (1981) The role of proline in energy metabolism. In: Downer RGH (ed) Energy metabolism in insects. Plenum Press, New York, pp 135–154Google Scholar
  12. Capinera JL, Sechrist TS (1982) Grasshoppers (Acrididae) of Colorado: identification, biology and management (Bullentin 584S). Colorado State University Experiment Station, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  13. Chapman RF (1990) Food selection. In: Chapman RF, Joern A (eds) Biology of grasshoppers. Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 39–72Google Scholar
  14. Chapman RF, Bernays EA, Wyatt T (1988) Chemical aspects of host-plant specificity in three Larrea-feeding grasshoppers. J Chem Ecol 14:561–579Google Scholar
  15. Cook AG (1977) Nutrient chemicals and oligophagy in Locusta migratoria. Ecol Entomol 2:113–121Google Scholar
  16. Ford ED (1984) The dynamics of plantation grwoth. In: Bowen GD, Nambiar EKS (eds) Nutrition of plantation forests. Academic Press, New York, pp 17–52Google Scholar
  17. Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984) Statistical procedures for agricultural research. Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Haglund BM (1980) Proline and valine — cues which stimulate grasshopper herbivory during drought stress? Nature 288:697–698Google Scholar
  19. Heron RJ (1965) The role of chemotactic stimuli in the feeding behavior of spruce budworm larva of white spruce. Can J Zool 43:247–269Google Scholar
  20. Joern A (1979) Feeding patterns in grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae): factors influencing diet specialization. Oecologia 38:325–347Google Scholar
  21. Joern A (1985) Grasshopper dietary from a Nebraska sand hills prairie. Trans Nebraska Acad Sci 8:21–32Google Scholar
  22. Karamanos AJ, Drossopoulos JB, Niavis CA (1983) Free proline accumulation during development of two wheat cultivars with stress. J Agric Sci 100:429–439Google Scholar
  23. Kozlowski TT, Kramer PJ, Pallardy SG (eds) (1991) The physiological ecology of woody plants. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  24. Lyttleton JW (1973) Amino acids, peptides and ureides. In: Butler G, Bailey R (eds) Chemistry and biochemistry of herbage. Academic Press, New York, pp 63–103Google Scholar
  25. Ma WC (1972) Dynamics of feeding responses in Pieris brassicae L. as a function of chemosensory input: a behavioral, ultrastructural and electrophysiological study. Meded Landbouwhogesch Wageningen 72:1–62Google Scholar
  26. Mattson WJ, Haack RA (1987a) The role of drought stress in provoking outbreaks of phytophagous insects. In: Barbosa P, Schultz JC (eds) Insect outbreaks. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 365–407Google Scholar
  27. Mattson WJ, Haack RA (1987b) The role of drought in outbreaks of plant-eating insects. BioScience 37:110–118Google Scholar
  28. Mooney HA, Winner WE, Pell EJ (eds) (1991) The intergrated response of plants to stress. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  29. Onsager JA, Mulkern GB (1963) Identification of eggs and egg pods of North Dakota grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae). N D Agric Exp St Bull 446:1–48Google Scholar
  30. Otte D, Joern A (1977) On feeding patterns in desert grasshoppers and the evolution of specialized diets. Proc Acad Nat Sci Philadelphia 128:89–126Google Scholar
  31. Prestridge RA, McNeil S (1983) The role of nitrogen in the ecology of grassland Auchenorryncha. In: Lee JA, McNeil S, Rorison IH (eds) Nitrogen as an ecological factor. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp 257–281Google Scholar
  32. 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, London, pp 3–54Google Scholar
  33. Sacktor B (1974) Biological oxidations and energetics in insect mitochondria. In: Rockstein M (ed) The physiology of insecta Academic, New York, pp 271–354Google Scholar
  34. Siegel S (1956) Nonparametric statistics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Simpson SJ (1982) Changes in the efficiency of utilisation of food throughout the fifth-instar nymphs of Locusta migratoria. Entomol Exp Appl 31:265–275Google Scholar
  36. Simpson SJ (1990) The pattern of feeding. In: Chapman RF, Joern A (eds) Biology of grasshoppers. Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 73–103Google Scholar
  37. Simpson SJ, Abisgold JD (1985) Compensation by locusts for changes in dietary nutrients: behavioural mechanisms. Physiol Entomol 10:443–452Google Scholar
  38. Simpson SJ, Simpson CL (1990) The mechanisms of nutritional compensation by phytophagous insects. In: Bernays EA (ed) Insect-plant interactions. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 112–160Google Scholar
  39. Simpson SJ, Simmonds MSJ, Blaney WM (1988) A comparison of dietary selection behaviour in larval Locusta migratoria and Spodoptera littoralis after a single deficient meal during ad libitum feeding. Physiol Entomol 13:225–238Google Scholar
  40. Waring RH, Pitman GB (1985) Modifying lodgepole pine stands to change susceptibility to mountain pine beetle attack. Ecology 66:889–897Google Scholar
  41. White TCR (1974) A hypothesis to explain outbreaks of looper caterpillars, with special reference to populations of Selidosema suavis in a plantation of Pinus radiata in New Zealand. Oecologia 22:119–134Google Scholar
  42. White TCR (1984) The abundance of invetebrate hervivores in relation to the availability of nitrogen in stressed food plants. Oecologia 63:90–105Google Scholar
  43. Wilkinson L (1990) SYSTAT: the system for statistics. SYSTAT Inc, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
  44. Wisiol K (1979) Clipping of water-stressed blue grama affects proline accumulation and productivity. J Range Manage 32:194–195Google Scholar
  45. Yeoh H, Watson L (1982) Taxonomic variation in total leaf protein amino acid compositions of grasses. Phytochemistry 21:615–626Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Spencer T. Behmer
    • 1
  • Anthony Joern
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of NebraskaLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations