Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 10, Issue 12, pp 1759–1785 | Cite as

Olfaction in the boll weevil,Anthonomus grandis Boh. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): Electroantennogram studies

  • Joseph C. Dickens
Article

Abstract

Electroantennogram (EAG) techniques were utilized to measure the antennal olfactory responsiveness of adult boll weevils,Anthonomus grandis Boh. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), to 38 odorants, including both insect and host plant (Gossypium hirsutum L.) volatiles. EAGs of both sexes were indicative of at least two receptor populations: one receptor population primarily responsive to pheromone components and related compounds, the other receptor population primarily responsive to plant odors. Similar responses to male aggregation pheromone components (i.e., compounds I, II, and III + IV) were obtained from both sexes, but females were slightly more sensitive to I. Both sexes were highly responsive to components of the “green leaf volatile complex,” especially the six-carbon saturated and monounsaturated primary alcohols. Heptanal was the most active aldehyde tested. More acceptors responded to oxygenated monoterpenes than to monoterpene hydrocarbons. β-Bisabolol, the major volatile of cotton, was the most active sesquiterpene. In general, males, which are responsible for host selection and pheromone production, were more sensitive to plant odors than were females. In fact, males were as sensitive to β-bisabolol and heptanal as to aggregation pheromone components. Electrophysiological data are discussed with regard to the role of insect and host plant volatiles in host selection and aggregation behavior of the boll weevil.

Key words

Cotton boll weevil Anthonomus grandis Coleoptera Curculionidae pheromone kairomone plant odor olfaction electroantennogram attractant host plant green leaf volatiles 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andryszak, N.A., Payne, T.L., Billings, P.M., andBenenati, J.M. 1982. Effect of flight activity on laboratory response of the southern pine beetle to an attractant.J. Ga. Entomol. Soc. 17:456–460.Google Scholar
  2. Atkins, M.D. 1966. Laboratory studies on the behavior of the Douglas-fir beetle,Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopkins.Can. Entomol. 98:953–991.Google Scholar
  3. Atkins, M.D. 1969. Lipid loss with flight in the Douglas-fir beetle.Can. Entomol. 101:164–165.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, R.B., andBorden, J.H. 1971. Flight arrestment of tetheredDendroctonus pseudotsugae andTrypodendron lineatum (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in response to olfactory stimuli.Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 64:1273–1286.Google Scholar
  5. Cross, W.H. 1973. Biology, control, and eradication of the boll weevil.Annu. Rev. Entomol. 18:17–46.Google Scholar
  6. Cross, W.H. 1983. Ecology of cotton insects with special reference to the boll weevil, pp. 53–70,in R.L. Ridgway, E.P. Lloyd, and W.H. Cross (eds.). Cotton Insect Management with Special Reference to the Boll Weevil. USDA Handbook No. 589.Google Scholar
  7. Cross, W.H., andMitchell, H.C. 1966. Mating behavior of female boll weevil.J. Econ. Entomol. 59:1503–1507.Google Scholar
  8. Cross, W.H., Lukefahr, M.J., Fryxell, P.A., andBurke, H.R. 1975. Host plants of the boll weevil.Environ. Entomol. 4:19–26.Google Scholar
  9. Cross, W.H., Mitchell, H.C., andHardee, D.D. 1976. Boll weevils: Response to light sources and colors on traps.Environ. Entomol. 5:565–571.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, E.E., andTakahashi, F.T. 1980. Humoral alteration of chemoreceptor sensitivity in the mosquito.Olfaction Taste 7:139–142.Google Scholar
  11. Dickens, J.C. 1978. Olfactory perception of pheromone and host-odour enantiomers byIps typographus L. (Col.: Scolytidae). 4th International Insect-Host Plant Symposium.Entomol. Exp. Appl. 24:136–142.Google Scholar
  12. Dickens, J.C. 1979. Electrophysiological investigations of olfaction in bark beetles.Mitt. Schweiz. Entomol. Ges. 52:203–216.Google Scholar
  13. Dickens, J.C. 1981. Behavioural and electrophysiological responses of the bark beetle,Ips typographus, to potential pheromone components.Physiol. Entomol. 6:251–261.Google Scholar
  14. Dickens, J.C., andPayne, T.L. 1977. Bark beetle olfaction: Pheromone receptor system inDendroctonus frontalis.J. Insect Physiol. 23:481–489.Google Scholar
  15. Gueldner, R.C., andWiygul, G. 1978. Rhythms in pheromone production of the male boll weevil.Science 199:984–986.Google Scholar
  16. Guerin, P.M., andStädler, E. 1982. Host odour perception in three phytophagous Diptera—A comparative study. Proceeding 5th International Symposium Insect-Plant Relationships, Wageningen, 1982. Pudoc, Wageningen, pp. 95–105.Google Scholar
  17. Guerin, P.M., andVisser, J.H. 1980. Electroantennogram responses of the carrot fly,Psila rosae, to volatile plant components.Physiol. Entomol. 5:111–119.Google Scholar
  18. Gutmann, A., Payne, T.L., Roberts, E.A., Schulte-Elte, K.-H., Giersch, W., andOhloff, G. 1981. Antennal olfactory response of the boll weevil to grandlure and vicinal dimethyl derivatives.J. Chem. Ecol. 7:919–926.Google Scholar
  19. Hardee, D.D., Mitchell, E.B., andHuddleston, P.M. 1966. Chemoreception of attractants from the cotton plant by boll weevils,Anthonomus grandis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 59:867–868.Google Scholar
  20. Hardee, D.D., Cross, W.H., andMitchell, E.B. 1969. Male boll weevils are more attractive than cotton plants to boll weevils.J. Econ. Entomol. 62:165–169.Google Scholar
  21. Hardee, D.D., McKibben, G.H., Gueldner, R.C., Mitchell, E.B., Tumlinson, J.H., andCross, W.H. 1972. Boll weevils in nature respond to grandlure, a synthetic pheromone.J. Econ. Entomol. 65:97–100.Google Scholar
  22. Hedin, P.A. 1976. Seasonal variations in the emission of volatiles by cotton plants growing in the field.Environ. Entomol. 5:1234–1238.Google Scholar
  23. Hedin, P.A., Thompson, A.C., andGueldner, R.C. 1973. The boll weevil-cotton plant complex.Toxicol. Environ. Chem. Rev. 1:291–351.Google Scholar
  24. Hedin, P.A., Thompson, A.C., andGueldner, R.C. 1975. Survey of the air space volatiles of the cotton plant.Phytochemistry 14:2088–2090.Google Scholar
  25. Hedin, P.A., McKibben, G.H., Mitchell, E.B., andJohnson, W.L. 1979. Identification and field evaluation of the compounds comprising the sex pheromone of the female boll weevil.J. Chem. Ecol. 5:617–627.Google Scholar
  26. Hunter, W.D., andPierce, W.D. 1912. The Mexican cotton boll weevil.U.S.D.A. Bur. Entomol. Bull. No. 114. 118 pp.Google Scholar
  27. Keller, J.C., Mitchell, E.B., McKibben, G. H., andDavich, T.B. 1964. A sex attractant for female boll weevils from males.J. Econ. Entomol. 57:609–610.Google Scholar
  28. Kozlowski, M.W., andVisser, J.H. 1981. Host-plant-related properties of the antennal olfactory system in the oak flea weevil,Rhynchaenus quercus. Electroantennogram study.Entomol. Exp. Appl. 30:169–175.Google Scholar
  29. McKibben, G.H., Hedin, P.A., McGovern, W.L., Wilson, N.M., andMitchell, E.B. 1977. A sex pheromone for male boll weevils from females.J. Chem. Ecol. 3:331–335.Google Scholar
  30. Minyard, J.P., Hardee, D.D., Gueldner, R.C., Thompson, A.C., Wiygul, G., andHedin, P.A. 1969. Constituents of the cotton bud. Compounds attractive to the boll weevil.Agric. Food Chem. 17:1093–1097.Google Scholar
  31. Mistric, W.J., Jr., andMitchell, E.R. 1966. Attractiveness of isolated groups of cotton plants to migrating boll weevils.J. Econ. Entomol. 59:39–41.Google Scholar
  32. Mitchell, E.B., andHardee, D.D. 1974. Seasonal determination of sex ratios and condition of diapause of boll weevils in traps and in the field.Environ. Entomol. 3:386–388.Google Scholar
  33. Mitchell, E.R., andTaft, H.M. 1966. Host-plant selection by migrating boll weevils.J. Econ. Entomol. 59:390–392.Google Scholar
  34. Mitchell, E.B., Hardee, D.D., Cross, W.H., Huddleston, P.M., andMitchell, H.C. 1972. Influence of rainfall, sex ratio, and physiological condition of boll weevils on their response to pheromone traps.Environ. Entomol. 4:438–440.Google Scholar
  35. Mustaparta, H. 1973. Olfactory sensilla on the antennae of the pine weevil,Hylobius abietis.Z. Zellforsch. Mikrosk. Anat. 144:559–571.Google Scholar
  36. Mustaparta, H. 1975a. Responses of single olfactory cells in the pine weevil,Hylobius abietis L. (Col.: Curculionidae).J. Comp. Physiol. 97:271–290.Google Scholar
  37. Mustaparta, H. 1975b. Behavioral responses of the pine weevilHylobius abietis L. to odours activating different groups of cells, pp. 3–20,in H. Mustaparta (ed.). Olfaction in the Pine WeevilHylobius abietis L. (Col.: Curculionidae). Universitetsforlagets Trykningssentral, Oslo.Google Scholar
  38. Oakley, B., andSchafer, R., 1978. Experimental Neurobiology. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, xii + 367 pp.Google Scholar
  39. Ostle, B. 1963. Statistics in Research. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, xv ± 585 pp.Google Scholar
  40. Palaniswamy, P., Sivasubramanian, P., andSeabrook, W.D. 1979. Modulation of sex pheromone perception in female moths of the eastern spruce budworm,Choristoneura fumiferana, by altosid.J. Insect Physiol. 25:571–574.Google Scholar
  41. Pantin, C.F.A. 1948. Notes on Microscopical Techniques for Zoologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  42. Parencia, C.R., Jr., Davis, J.W., andCowan, C.B., Jr. 1964. Studies on the ability of overwintered boll weevils to find fruiting cotton plants.J. Econ. Entomol. 57:162.Google Scholar
  43. Payne, T.L. 1970. Electrophysiological investigations of response to pheromone in bark beetles.Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 24:275–282.Google Scholar
  44. Payne, T.L. 1975. Bark beetle olfaction. III. Antennal olfactory responsiveness ofDendroctonus frontalis Zimmerman andD. brevicomis Le Conte (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to aggregation pheromones and host tree terpene hydrocarbons.J. Chem. Ecol. 1:233–242.Google Scholar
  45. Ridgway, R.L., andLloyd, E.P. 1983. Evolution of cotton insect management in the United States, pp. 3–37,in R.L. Ridgway, E.P. Lloyd, and W.H. Cross (eds.). Cotton Insect Management with Special Reference to the Boll Weevil. USDA Handbook No. 589.Google Scholar
  46. Rummel, D.R., andBottrell, D.G. 1976. Seasonally related decline in response of boll weevils to. pheromone traps during mid-season.Environ. Entomol. 5:783–787.Google Scholar
  47. Schneider, D. 1957. Elektrophysiologische Untersuchungen von Chemo- und Mechanorezeptoren der Antenne des SeidenspinnersBombyx mori L.Z. Vergl. Physiol. 40:8–41.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, G.L., Cleveland, T.C., andClark, J.C. 1965. Boll weevil movement from hibernation sites to fruiting cotton.J. Econ. Entomol. 58:357–358.Google Scholar
  49. Städler, E. 1977. Sensory aspects of insect plant interactions. Proceedings XV International Congress of Entomology (Washington, D.C.), pp. 228–248.Google Scholar
  50. Thompson, A.C., andMitlin, N. 1979. Biosynthesis of the sex pheromone of the male boll weevil from monoterpene precursors.Insect Biochem. 9:293–294.Google Scholar
  51. Thompson, A.C., Wright, B.J., Hardee, D.D., Gueldner, R.C., andHedin, P.A. 1970. Constituents of the cotton bud XVI. The attractancy response of the boll weevil to the essential oils of a group of host and nonhost plants.J. Econ. Entomol. 63:751–753.Google Scholar
  52. Thompson, A.C., Hanny, B.W., Hedin, P.A., andGueldner, R.C. 1971. Phytochemical studies in the family Malvaceae. I. Comparison of essential oils of six species by gas-liquid chromatography.Am. J. Bot. 58:803–807.Google Scholar
  53. Tumlinson, J.H., Hardee, D.D., Gueldner, R.C., Thompson, A.C., Hedin, P.A., andMinyard, J.P. 1969. Sex pheromones produced by male boll weevils: Isolation, identification, and syntheses.Science 166:1010–1012.Google Scholar
  54. Van der Pers, J.N.C. 1981. Comparison of electroantennogram response spectra to plant volatiles in seven species ofYponomeuta and in the tortricidAdoxophyes orana.Entomol. Exp. Appl. 30:181–192.Google Scholar
  55. Visser, J.H. 1979. Electroantennogram responses of the Colorado beetle,Leptinotarsa decemlineata to plant volatiles.Entomol. Exp. Appl. 25:86–97.Google Scholar
  56. Visser, J.H. 1983. Differential sensory perceptions of plant compounds by insects.Am. Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. No. 208:215–230.Google Scholar
  57. Visser, J.H., andAve, D.A. 1978. General green leaf volatiles in the olfactory orientation of the Colorado beetle,Leptinotarsa decemlineata.Entomol. Exp. Appl. 24:538–549.Google Scholar
  58. Visser, J.H., Van Straten, S., andMaarse, H. 1979. Isolation and identification of volatiles in the foliage of potato,Solanum tuberosum, a host plant of the Colorado beetle,Leptinotarsa decemlineata.J. Chem. Ecol. 5:13–25.Google Scholar
  59. Van, E, andVisser, J.H. 1982. Electroantennogram response of the cereal aphidSitobion avenae to plant volatile components. Proceeding 5th International Symposium Insect-Plant Relationships, Wageningen, 1982. Pudoc, Wageningen, pp. 387–388.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph C. Dickens
    • 1
  1. 1.Boll Weevil Research Laboratory Mississippi StateUSDA, ARSMississippi

Personalised recommendations