Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 504–513 | Cite as

Responses of Second-Instar Male Nymphs of Four Mealybug Species (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) to Conspecific and Heterospecific Female Sex Pheromones

  • Zvi Mendel
  • Poonum Jasrotia
  • Alex Protasov
  • Hofit Kol-Maimon
  • Anat Levi Zada
  • José Carlos Franco
Article

Abstract

The response of the late second-instar male nymphs of the mealybug species (Hemiptera, Pseudococcidae), Planococcus citri (Risso), Planococcus ficus (Signoret), Pseudococcus cryptus Hempel Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead), to their conspecific and heterospecific female pheromone was studied. Males that exhibited the typical appearance of late-second-instar nymphs were tested. The male behavior was monitored soon after their exposure to the tested female sex pheromone in glass Petri dish arenas. Male nymph behavior toward the pheromone source was characterized based on their aggregation on the disks in the arena. Males of all four tested mealybug species were attracted to their conspecific female pheromone. By contrast, almost no interceptions of male nymphs with disks impregnated with a heterospecific female pheromone were observed. The mode of attraction of each of male nymphs of P. ficus, among most of the tested individuals (>80%), to the conspecific female sex pheromone, (S)-lavandulyl senecioate and or (S)-lavandulyl isovalerate, was the same as the mode of attraction latter on as adult. We suggest that by being attracted to the conspecific pheromone these males may direct themselves to a suitable pupation site near conspecific non-sibling mature females, thus preventing inbreeding. The repellency of heterospecific sex pheromone to males that are looking for a pupation site suggests that the latter try to avoid close contact with heterospecific females.

Keywords

Mealybug male nymphs sex pheromone attraction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Miriam Eliyahu and Daniela Fefer for their valuable technical assistance in rearing the studied mealybugs. We thank Ally Arari for her comments on an early draft of the manuscript and to two anonymous reviewers for the constructive remarks and suggestions.

References

  1. Aldrich JR (1988) Chemical ecology of the Heteroptera. Annu Rev Entomol 33:211–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amarasekare KG, Chong JH, Epsky ND, Mannion CM (2008) Effect of temperature on the life history of the mealybug Paracoccus marginatus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). J Econ Entomol 101:1798–1804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bodenheimer FS, Neumark S (1955) The Israel Pine Matsucoccus (Matsucoccus josephi nov. spec.). Keren Kayemeth le Israel Afforestation Dept, Jerusalem, p 122Google Scholar
  4. Borchsenius NS (1956) The question of the course of evolution of Coccoidea (Insecta, Homoptera). Zool J Moscow 35:546–553Google Scholar
  5. Cardé RT, and Haynes KF (2004) Structure of the pheromone communication channel in moths. In Advances in insect chemical ecology. In: Carde RT, Millar JG (eds.), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, pp. 283–332Google Scholar
  6. Chong JH, Oetting RD, Van Lersel MW (2003) Temperature effects on the development, survival, and reproduction of the Madeira mealybug, Phenacoccus madeirensis Green (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), on chrysanthemum. Ann Entomol Soc Am 96:539–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chong JH, Roda AL, Mannion CM (2008) Life history of the mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), at constant temperatures. Environ Entomol 37:323–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Danzig EM (1980) Coccoids of the far eastern USSR (Homoptera, Coccinea) with phylogenetic analysis of scale insects fauna of the world. (In Russian). Nauka, Leningrad. 367 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunkelblum E (1999) Scale insects. In: Hardie J, Minks AK (eds) Pheromones of Non-lepidopteran Insects Associated with Agricultural Plants. CAB, Wallingford, UK, pp 251–276Google Scholar
  10. Duthie B, Gries G, Gries R, Krupke C, Derksen S (2003) Does pheromone-based aggregation of codling moth larvae help procure future mates? J. Chem Ecol 29:425–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foldi I (2005) Ground pearls: a generic revision of the Margarodidae sensu stricto. (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Coccoidea). Ann Soc Entomol Fr 41:81–25Google Scholar
  12. Gray HE (1954) The development of the citrus mealybug. J Econ Entomol 47:174–176Google Scholar
  13. Gullan PJ, Kosztarab M (1997) Adaptations in scale insects. Annu Rev Entomol 42:23–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kol-Maimon H, Zada A, Franco JC, Dunkelblum E, Protasov A, Eliyaho M, Mendel Z (2010) Male behaviors reveal multiple pherotypes within vine mealybug Planococcus ficus (Signoret) (Hemiptera; Pseudococcidae) populations. Naturwissenschaften 97:1047–1057PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koteja J (1985) Essay on the prehistory of the scale insects (Homoptera, Coccinea). Ann Zool (Warsaw) 38:461–504Google Scholar
  16. Koteja J (1990) 1.3.2. Life history. In: Rosen, D. (ed.), Armored scale insects, their biology, natural enemies and control [Series title: World Crop Pests, Vol. 4A]. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 243–254Google Scholar
  17. Landolt PJ (1997) Sex attractant and aggregation pheromones of male phytophagous insects. Am Entomologist 43:12–22Google Scholar
  18. McKenzie HL (1967) Mealybugs of California with Taxonomy, Biology and Control of North American Species (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae). University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, p 534Google Scholar
  19. Mendel Z, Saphir N, Robison D (1990) Mass rearing of the Israeli pine bast scale, Matsucoccus josephi (Homoptera: Margarodidae), with notes on its biology and mating behavior. Ann Entomol Soc Am 83:532–537Google Scholar
  20. Mendel Z, Protasov A, Jasrotia P, Silva EB, Zada A, Franco JC (2012) Sexual maturation and aging of adult male mealybug (Hemiptera; Pseudococcidae). Bull Entomol Res. doi: 10.1017/S0007485311000605
  21. Monastero S, Zaami V (1960) Le cocciniglie degli agrumi in Sicilia (Ceroplastes sinensis D.G. - Pseudococcus citri R. - Icerya purchasi M.). Boll Ist Entomol Agrar Oss Fitopatol Palermo 3:1–82Google Scholar
  22. Morales CF (1991) Margarodidae (Insecta: Hemiptera). Fauna of New Zealand / Ko te Aitanga Pepeke o Aotearoa. In: Duval CT (series ed) No. 21. DSIR Plant Protection, Auckland, New Zealand. 123ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Nakahata T, Itagaki N, Arai T, Sugie H, Kuwahara S (2003) Synthesis of the sex pheromone of the citrus mealybug, Pseudococcus cryptus. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 67:2627–2631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nakajima Y, Sakuma M, Sasaki R, Fujisaki K (2010) Adaptive traits of Riptortus pedestris nymphs (Heteroptera: Alydidae) for locating host plants. Ann Entomol Soc Am 103:439–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nelson-Rees W (1960) A study of sex predetermination in the mealy bug Planococcus citri (Risso). J Exp Zool 144:111–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nur U, Chandra HS (1963) Interspecific hybridization and gynogenesis in mealy bugs. Am Nat 97:197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rieux R (1976) Matsucoccus pini Green (1925). (Homoptera, Margarodidae) dans le Sud-Est de la France. Variations intraspecifiques. Comparaison avec des especes les plus proches. (In French; Summary In English). Ann Zool 8:231–263Google Scholar
  28. Rotundo G, Tremblay E (1982) Hybridization and sex pheromone response in two closely related mealybug species (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Syst Entomol 7:475–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sant’Ana J, Bruni R, Aldul-Baki AA, Aldrich JR (1997) Pheromone induced movement of nymphs of the predator Podisus maculiventris ( Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Biol Cont 10:123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sayed MT, Soliman AA, Salama HS (1962) On the development stages of Planococcus vitis Nied. and Planococcus citri Risso. Bull Soc Entomol Egypte 46:449–457Google Scholar
  31. Silva EB, Mouco J, Antunes R, Mendel Z, Franco JC (2009) Mate location and sexual maturity of adult male mealybugs: narrow window of opportunity in a short lifetime. IOBC WPRS Bull 41:3–9Google Scholar
  32. Silva EB, Branco M, Mendel Z, and Franco JC (2011) Mating behaviour and performance of two cosmopolitan mealybug species (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). J Insect Behav (submitted)Google Scholar
  33. Simani T (2007) Study of the reproductive biology and identification of the sex pheromone of the cypress mealybug Planococcus vovae. MSc Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Quality Sciences, Hebrew University of JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  34. Schaller-Selzer L (1984) Physiology and morphology of the larval sexual pheromone-sensitive neurones in the olfactory lobe of the cockroach, Periplaneta americana. Jour Insect Physiol 30:537–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tranfaglia A, Tremblay E (1982) A morphological comparison between Planococcus citri (Risso), Planococcus ficus (Signoret) and their F1 hybrids. Entomotaxonomia 4:1–5Google Scholar
  36. Watson GW, Kubiriba J (2005) Identification of mealybugs (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on banana plantation in Africa. Afr Entomol 13:35–47Google Scholar
  37. Yasuda K, Tsurumachi M (1995) Influence of male adults of the leaf-footed plant bug, Leptoglossus australism F. (Heteroptera:Coreidae), on host-searching of the egg parasitoid, Gryon pennsylvanicum (Ashmead) (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae). Appl Entomol Zool 30:139–144Google Scholar
  38. Zada A, Dunkelblum E, Assael F, Harel M, Cojocaru M, Mendel Z (2003) Sex pheromone of the vine mealybug, Planococcus ficus in Israel: occurrence of a second component in mass-reared population. J Chem Ecol 29:977–987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zada A, Dunkelblum E, Harel M, Assael F, Gross S, Mendel Z (2004) Sex pheromone of the citrus mealybug Planococcus citri: Synthesis and optimization of trap parameters. J Econ Entomol 97:361–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zada A, Dunkelblum E, Assael F, Franco JC, Silva EB, Protasov A, Mendel Z (2008) Attraction of Planococcus ficus males to racemic and chiral pheromone baits: flight activity and bait longevity. J App Entomol 132:480–489Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zvi Mendel
    • 1
  • Poonum Jasrotia
    • 2
  • Alex Protasov
    • 1
  • Hofit Kol-Maimon
    • 1
  • Anat Levi Zada
    • 1
  • José Carlos Franco
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyARO, the Volcani CenterBet DaganIsrael
  2. 2.Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC)Michigan State University (MSU)East LansingUSA
  3. 3.Centro de Estudos Florestais, Instituto Superior de AgronomiaUniversidade Técnica de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations