Behavior Genetics

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 311–319 | Cite as

The use of behavioral mutants in biological control

  • Joe Grossfield
Article
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Flies of the genusDrosophila fall into three classes with respect to the effect of light on their mating behavior. Class I species mate freely in both light and darkness, while class II species are inhibited in darkness. Class III represents those species with an absolute requirement for light, which will not mate in darkness. The breadth of geographic distribution and the extent of light dependency are correlated; endemic species have the greatest light dependency and cosmopolitan species demonstrate the least dependency. Class II species are intermediate in both respects. These classes of light dependency reflect the degree to which the courtship behavior of the various species is locked in on unique visual stimuli. Species which mate freely in darkness can use sensory modalities other than vision in their courtship. This indicates the relative flexibility of the underlying genetic architecture subserving mating behavior and suggests that widely distributed species possess greater behavioral plasticity than specialized forms. The existence of genetic control elements as well as morphological and neurological mutants provides several modes by which the reproductive activities of species uniquely dependent on visual stimuli can be interrupted. Some insects in orders other than Diptera also rely on visual stimuli for reproductive activities. There are several points in the course of a mating sequence where such stimuli can be used: (1) as a trigger for activity, (2) as a signal to initiate courtship, and (3) as a releaser of a specific motor pattern during courtship itself. The use of mutants affecting behavior is potentially feasible for biological control of insects relying on information received via other sensory systems as well. The basic requirements for the practical use of behavioral mutants are (1) species uniquely dependent on a particular sensory input, (2) a means of generating mutants which interfere with this path of information flow and (3) techniques for delivering and/or maintaining behavioral mutants in populations. Rearing and release of behavioral mutants could be an effective means of reducing fertility of pest populations by rendering translocationhomozygotes sterile in an overall program using the semisterility of translocation heterozygotes to effect population control. Alternately, behavioral mutants could be used at the point in a program where further reduction of population density with multiple heterozygous translocations alone was not practicable.

Keywords

Biological Control Visual Stimulus Sensory Modality Mating Behavior Genetic Architecture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alawi, A. A., and Pak, W. L. (1971). On-transient of insect electroretinogram: Its cellular origin.Science 172: 1055–1057.Google Scholar
  2. Andrewartha, H. G., and Birch, L. C. (1954).The Distribution and Abundance of Animals, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 782 p.Google Scholar
  3. Barton Browne, L. (1957). The effect of light on the mating behaviour of the Queensland fruitflyStrumeta tryoni (Frogg).Aust. J. Zool. 5: 145–158.Google Scholar
  4. Barton Browne, L., Bartell, R. J., and Shorey, H. H. (1969). Pheromone-mediated behaviour leading to group oviposition in the blow flyLucilia cuprina.J. Insect Physiol. 15: 1003–1014.Google Scholar
  5. Bastock, M. (1967).Courtship: An Ethological Study, Aldine, Chicago, 220 p.Google Scholar
  6. Blickle, R. L. (1959). Observations on the hovering and mating ofTabanus bishoppi.Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 52: 183–190.Google Scholar
  7. Bush, G. L. (1969). Sympatric host race formation and speciation in frugivorous flies of the genusRhagoletis (Diptera, Tephritidae).Evolution 23: 237–251.Google Scholar
  8. Connolly, K., Burnet, B., and Sewell, D. (1969). Selective mating and eye pigmentation: An analysis of the visual component in the courtship behavior ofDrosophila melanogaster.Evolution 23: 548–559.Google Scholar
  9. Curtis, C. F., and Robinson, A. S. (1971). Computer simulation of the use of double translocations for pest control.Genetics 69: 97–113.Google Scholar
  10. Daterman, G. E. (1970). An improved technique for mating European pine shoot moth,Rhyacionia buoliana (Lepidoptera: Olethreutidae), in the laboratory.Can. Entomol. 102: 541–545.Google Scholar
  11. Downes, J. A. (1969). The swarming and mating flight of Diptera.Ann. Rev. Entomol. 14:271–298.Google Scholar
  12. Ewing, A. W. (1969). The genetic basis of sound production inDrosophila pseudoobscura andD. Persimilis.Anim. Behav. 17: 555–560.Google Scholar
  13. Gee, J. H. (1969). An analysis of natural selection in laboratory populations ofDacus (Tephritidae: Diptera).Evolution.23: 212–224.Google Scholar
  14. Grossfield, J. (1966). The influence of light on the mating behavior ofDrosophila.Stud. Genet. (Univ. Tex. Publ. 6615)3: 147–176.Google Scholar
  15. Grossfield, J. (1968a). Visual stimuli in the biology of the HawaiianDrosophila.Stud. Genet. (Univ. Tex. Publ. 6818)4: 301–307.Google Scholar
  16. Grossfield, J. (1968b). The relative importance of wing utilization in light dependent courtship inDrosophila.Stud. Genet. (Univ. Tex. Publ. 6818)4: 147–156.Google Scholar
  17. Grossfield, J. (1970). Evidence for the genetic control of a complex behavior inDrosophila.Genetics 64: s27.Google Scholar
  18. Grossfield, J. (1971a). Behavioral differentiation of three races ofDrosophila auraria.J. Hered. 62: 117–118.Google Scholar
  19. Grossfield, J. (1971b). Geographic distribution and light dependent behavior inDrosophila.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 68: 2669–2673.Google Scholar
  20. Grossfield, J., and Pak, W. L. (1971). Isolation of autosomal visual mutants inDrosophila melanogaster.Genetics 68: s25.Google Scholar
  21. Hardeland, R. (1971). Lighting conditions and mating behavior inDrosophila.Am. Naturalist 105 198–200.Google Scholar
  22. Heisenberg, M. (1971). Isolation of mutants lacking the optomotor response.Drosophila Inform. Serv. 46: 68.Google Scholar
  23. Hotta, Y., and Benzer, S. (1969). Abnormal electroretinograms in visual mutants ofDrosophila.Nature 222: 354–356.Google Scholar
  24. Laven, H. (1969). Eradicating mosquitoes using translocations.Nature 221: 958–959.Google Scholar
  25. Lodha, K. R., Treece, R. E., and Koutz, F. R. (1970). Studies on the mating behavior of the face fly.J. Econ. Entomol. 63: 207–212.Google Scholar
  26. Manning, A. (1965).Drosophila and the evolution of behavior.Viewpoints Biol. 4: 125–169.Google Scholar
  27. Mayr, E., and Dobzhansky, T. (1945). Experiments on sexual isolation inDrosophila. IV. Modification of the degree of isolation betweenDrosophila pseudoobscura andDrosophila persimilis and of sexual preferences inDrosophila prosaltans.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 31: 75–82.Google Scholar
  28. Narda, R. D. (1966). Analysis of the stimuli involved in courtship and mating inD. malerkotliana (Sophophora, Drosophila).Anim. Behav. 14: 378–383.Google Scholar
  29. O'Brien, S. J., and MacIntyre, R. J. (1971). A biochemical genetic map ofD. melanogaster.Drosophila Inform. Serv. 46: 89–93.Google Scholar
  30. Pak, W. L., Grossfield, J., and White, N. V. (1969). Nonphototactic mutants in a study of vision ofDrosophila.Nature 222: 351–354.Google Scholar
  31. Pak, W. L., Grossfield, J., and Arnold, K. S. (1970). Mutants of the visual pathway ofDrosophila melanogaster.Nature 227: 518–520.Google Scholar
  32. Patterson, J. T., and Stone, W. S. (1952).Evolution in the Genus Drosophila, Macmillan, New York, 610 p.Google Scholar
  33. Petit, C., and Ehrman, L. (1969). Sexual selection inDrosophila. In Dobzhansky, T., Hecht, M. K., and Steere, W. C. (eds.),Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 2, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp. 177–223.Google Scholar
  34. Philip, U., Rendel, J. M., Spurway, H., and Haldane, J. B. S. (1944). Genetics and karyology ofDrosophila subobscura.Nature 154: 260–262.Google Scholar
  35. Pipkin, S. B. (1956). Two new species ofDrosophila (subgenus Pholadoris) and a redescription ofD. hypocausta osten sacken.Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 58: 251–258.Google Scholar
  36. Roeder, K. D. (1966). Auditory system of noctuid moths.Science 154: 1515–1521.Google Scholar
  37. Rogoff, W. M. (1965). Mating of the house fly,Musca domestica L., in monitored darkness.J. Med. Entomol. 2: 54–56.Google Scholar
  38. Roth, L. M. (1948). A study of mosquito behavior.Am. Mid. Nat. 40: 265–352.Google Scholar
  39. Spiess, E. B. (1970). Mating propensity and its genetic basis inDrosophila. In Hecht, M. K., and Steere, W. C. (eds.),Essays in Evolution and Genetics, in Honor of Th. Dobzhansky, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp. 315–379.Google Scholar
  40. Spieth, H. T. (1952). Mating behavior within the genusDrosophila (Diptera).Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 99: 395–474.Google Scholar
  41. Spieth, H. T. (1969). Courtship and mating behavior of theDrosophila nasuta subgroup of species.Stud. Genet. (Univ. Tex. Publ. 6918)4: 255–270.Google Scholar
  42. Spieth, H. T., and Hsu, T. C. (1950). The influence of light on seven species of theDrosophila melanogaster species group.Evolution 4: 316–325.Google Scholar
  43. Stone, A., Sabrosky, C. W., Wirth, W. W., Foote, R. H., and Coulson, J. R. (1965).A Catalog of the Dipera of America North of Mexico, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  44. Teskey, H. J. (1969). On the behavior and ecology of the face fly,Musca autumnalis (Diptera: Muscidae).Can. Entomol. 101: 561–575.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joe Grossfield
    • 1
  1. 1.The New England InstituteRidgefield

Personalised recommendations