We tested the role of a grasshopper defensive secretion in deterring lizard predation. Adults, but not young larvae, of the chemically defended lubber grasshopperRomalea guttata (=microptera) froth a volatile secretion when attacked by predators. The lizardAnolis carolinensis failed to strike juvenile lubbers (which lack secretion) in laboratory trials. Survivorship of palatable crickets loaded with secretion offered toA. carolinensis was not significantly different from survivorship of control crickets. In experiments designed to investigate if lizards learn an aversion to the secretion, striking times forSceloporus undulatus fed wax worms coated with secretion were not significantly different over three days of trials. Three primary conclusions are drawn from these data. First, the secretion may not be necessary for lubber protection from lizards. Second, lubber secretion does not appear to deter lizards from attacking or eating prey items. Third, lizards do not appear to develop an aversion to the secretion.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Blum MS (1981) Chemical Defense of Arthropods. Pp 562. New York: Academic Press
Blum MS, Severson RF, Arrendale RF, Whitman DW, Escoubas P, Adeyeye O, Jones CG (1990) A generalist herbivore in a specialist mode: metabolic, sequestrative, and defensive consequences. J Chem Ecol 16:233–244
Bowers MD (1992) The evolution of unpalatability and the cost of chemical defense in insects. Pp 216–244in Roitberg BD, Isman MB (eds) Insect Chemical Ecology. New York: Chapman & Hall
Cooper Jr WJ (1989) Absence of prey odor discrimination by iguanid and agamid lizards in applicator tests. Copeia 1989:472–478
Coppinger RP (1970) The effect of experience and novelty on avian feeding behavior with reference to the evolution of warning coloration in butterflies. II. Reactions of naive birds to novel insects. Am Nat 104:323–335
Dicke M, Sabelis MW (1992) Costs and benefits of chemical information conveyance: proximate and ultimate factors. Pp 122–155in Roitberg BD, Isman MB (eds) Insect Chemical Ecology. New York: Chapman & Hall
Duffey SS (1977) Arthropod allomones: chemical effronteries and antagonists. Proc XV Int Cong Ent Wash DC, Aug 1976. 15:323–394
Eisner T, Hendrey LB, Peakall DB, Meinwald J (1971) 2,5-Dichlorophenol (from ingested herbicide?) in defensive secretion of grasshopper. Science 172:277–278
Isman MB (1992) A physiological perspective. Pp 156–176in Roitberg BD, Isman MB (eds) Insect Chemical Ecology. New York: Chapman & Hall
Järvi T, Sillén-Tullberg B, Wiklund C (1981) The cost of being aposematic. An experimental study of predation on larvae ofPapilio machaon by the great tit Parus major. Oikos 36:267–272
Johki Y, Hidaka T (1979) Function of the “warning coloration” in larvae of a diurnal moth,Pryeria sinica Moore (Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae). Appl Ent Zool 14:164–172
Jones CG, Hess TA, Whitman DW, Silk PJ, Blum MS (1986) Idiosyncratic variation in chemical defenses among individual generalist grasshoppers. J Chem Ecol 12:749–761
Jones CG, Hess TA, Whitman DW, Silk PJ, Blum MS (1987) Effects of diet breadth on autogenous chemical defense of a generalist grasshopper. J Chem Ecol 13:283–297
Jones CG, Whitman DW, Compton SJ, Blum MS (1989) Reduction in diet breadth results in sequestration of plant chemicals and increases efficacy of chemical defense in a generalist grasshopper. J Chem Ecol 15:1811–1822
Krebs JR (1978) Optimal foraging: decision rules for predators. Pp 23–63in Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural Ecology: an Evolutionary Approach. Sunderland/MA: Sinaur
Sexton OJ, Hoger, Ortleb E (1966)Anolis carolinensis: Effects of feeding on reaction to aposematic prey. Science 153: 1140
Sillén-Tullberg B (1985) Higher survival of an aposematic than of a cryptic form of a distasteful bug. Oecologia 67: 411–415
Skoczylas R (1978) Physiology of the digestive tract. Pp 589–717in Gans C, Gans KA (eds) Biology of the Reptilia. Vol 8. New York: Academic Press
Whitman DW (1988) Allelochemical interactions among plants, herbivores, and their predators. Pp 11–64in Barbosa P and Letourneau D (eds) Novel Aspects of Insect-Plants Interactions. New York: John Wiley & Sons
Whitman DW, Blum MS, Jones CG (1985) Chemical defense inTaeniopoda eques (Orthoptera: Acrididae): role of the metathoracic secretion. Ann Entomol Soc Am 78:451–455
Whitman DW, Blum MS, Alsop DW (1990) Allomones: chemicals for defense. Pp 289–351in Evans DL, Schmidt JO (eds) Insect Defenses. Albany/NY: State Univ of New York Press
Whitman DW, Jones CG, Blum MS (1992) Defensive secretion production in lubber grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Romaleidae): Influence of age, sex, diet, and discharge frequency. Ann Entomol Soc Am 85:96–102
Whitman DW, Billen JP, Alsop DW, Blum MS (1991) Anatomy, ultrastructure, and functional morphology of the metathoracic tracheal defensive glands of the grasshopperRomalea guttata. Can J Zool 69:2100–2108
About this article
Cite this article
Hatle, J.D., Townsend, V.R. Defensive secretion of a flightless grasshopper: Failure to prevent lizard attack. Chemoecology 7, 184–188 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01266311
- chemical defense
- lizard foraging
- learned aversion
- Romalea guttata