Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 221–231 | Cite as

Flight response ofHeliothis subflexa (Gn.) females (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to an attractant from groundcherry,Physalis angulata L.

  • F. C. Tingle
  • R. R. Heath
  • E. R. Mitchell
Article

Abstract

Mated femaleHeliothis subflexa (Gn.) (HS) moths 1–7 days old responded positively in a Plexiglas flight tunnel to an attractant extracted with methanol from fresh whole-leaf washes of groundcherry,Physalis angulata L. Response to the groundcherry extract, as indicated by plume-tracking (i.e., upwind flight toward the odor source) and contact with the chemical dispenser did not change significantly during the first 5 hr of scotophase. Overall, ca. 50% of the responding moths also landed on the chemical dispenser; ca. 50% of the moths that landed also deposited eggs. There were no significant differences in the behavioral responses of females mating only once and those that had mated two or more times. Virgin females and male moths were significantly less responsive to the groundcherry attractant than mated females. The flight tunnel bioassay described provides an excellent system for evaluating plant allelochemics associated with host-plant selection.

Key Words

Heliothis subflexa Lepidoptera Noctuidae attractant kairomone groundcherry Physalis angulatus flight tunnel bioassay plant-insect interaction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brazzel, J.R., Newsome, L.D., Rousel, T.S., Lincoln, C., Williams, F.J., andBarnes, G. 1953. Bollworm and tobacco budworm as cotton pests in Louisiana and Arkansas.La. Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 482, 47 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Guy, R.H., Leppla, N.C., Rye, J.R., Green, C.W., Barrett, S.L., andHollien, K.A. 1985.Trichoplusia ni, pp. 487–494,in P. Singh and R.F. Moore (eds.). Handbook of Insect Rearing, Vol. II. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  3. Jackson, D.M., Severson, R.F., Johnson, A.W., Chaplin, J.F., andStephenson, M.G. 1984. Ovipositional response of tobacco budworm moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to cuticular chemical isolates from green tobacco leaves.Environ. Entomol. 13:1023–1030.Google Scholar
  4. Laster, M.L. 1972. Interspecific hybridization ofHeliothis virescens andH. subflexa.Environ. Entomol. 1:682–687.Google Scholar
  5. Mitchell, E.R., andHeath, R.R. 1987.Heliothis subflexa (Gn.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): Demonstration of an oviposition stimulant from groundcherry using a novel bioassay.J. Chem. Ecol. 13(8):1849–1858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Rembold, H., andTober, H. 1985. Kairomones as pigeonpea resistance factors againstHeliothis armigera.Insect Sci. Applic. 6:249–252.Google Scholar
  7. Steel, R.G.D., andTorrie, J.H. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Teal, P.E.A., McClaughlin, J.R., andTumlinson, J.H. 1981. Analysis of the reproductive behavior ofHeliothis virescens (F.) under laboratory conditions.Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 74:324–330.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. C. Tingle
    • 1
  • R. R. Heath
    • 1
  • E. R. Mitchell
    • 1
  1. 1.Insect Attractants, Behavior, and Basic Biology Research Laboratory Agricultural Research ServiceU.S. Department of AgricultureGainesville

Personalised recommendations