Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 127–131 | Cite as

Attractiveness of tobacco budworm females altered by oral chemosterilants and dietary additives

  • D. E. Hendricks
  • H. H. De La Rosa
  • A. A. Guerra


FemaleHeliothis virescens (F.) moths reared from larvae on diet treated (0.1%) with experimental chemosterilants or the dietary additive, DL-leucine, were used as bait in sex lure traps in field cages when they were 2–4 nights old. Catches of untreated released males were used to determine relative attractiveness of the chemically treated females. The catch (indicating quantity or production frequency of pheromone) was significantly increased whendl-leucine had been fed in the larval diet, and sulfanilamide caused a slight increase in female attractiveness. The catch of males was significantly reduced when either reserpine or quercitin had been added to the diet. The other chemicals, bisdicumarol, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, β-sitosterol, and dihydrocholesterol, did not significantly affect the catch.

Key words

Sex pheromone production Heliothis virescens (F.) attractiveness chemosterilants 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. El Sayed, I.E., andGraves, J.B. 1969. Effects of gamma radiation on the tobacco budworm. I. Irradiation of pupae.J. Econ. Entomol. 62:289–293.Google Scholar
  2. Flint, H.M., andKressin, E.L. 1967. Gamma irradiation of pupae of the tobacco budworm.J. Econ. Entomol. 60:1655–1699.Google Scholar
  3. Flint, H.M., Klassen, W., Kressin, E., andNorland, J. 1968. Chemosterilization of the tobacco budworm: A survey of 16 compounds fed to adult moths.J. Econ. Entomol. 61:1726–1729.Google Scholar
  4. Guerra, A.A. 1970. Effect of biologically active substances in the diet on development and reproduction ofHeliothis spp.J. Econ. Entomol. 63:1518–1521.Google Scholar
  5. Guerra, A.A. 1975. Sexual sterilization of tobacco budworms with combinations of oral chemosterilants and gamma irradiation.J. Econ. Entomol. 68:1–3.Google Scholar
  6. Guerra, A.A., Wolfenbarger, D.A., Hendricks, D.E., Garcia, R.D., andRaulston, J.R. 1972. Competitiveness and behavior of tobacco budworms sterilized with reserpine and gamma irradiation.J. Econ. Entomol. 65:966–969.Google Scholar
  7. Hendricks, D.E. 1974. Tobacco budworm: Effects of60cobalt irradiation on female attractiveness and mating frequency.J. Econ. Entomol. 67:610–612.Google Scholar
  8. Hendricks, D.E., andTumlinson, J.H. 1974. A field cage bioassay system for testing candidate sex pheromones of the tobacco budworm.Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 67:547–552.Google Scholar
  9. Hendricks, D.E., Graham, H.M., Guerra, R.J. andPerez, C.T. 1973. Comparison of the numbers of tobacco budworms and bollworms caught in sex pheromone traps vs. blacklight traps in lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas.Environ. Entomol. 2:911–914.Google Scholar
  10. Wolfenbarger, D.A., Cantu, E., Guerra, A.A., Pomonis, J.G., Robinson, S.H., andGarcia, R.D. 1974. Chemosterilant activity of 75 compounds against the tobacco budworm.Fla. Entomol. 57:287–296.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. E. Hendricks
    • 1
  • H. H. De La Rosa
    • 1
  • A. A. Guerra
    • 1
  1. 1.Cotton Insects Research Laboratory Agricultural Research ServiceUnited States Department of AgricultureBrownsville

Personalised recommendations