Mating behavior and vibrational mimicry in the glassy-winged sharpshooter, Homalodisca vitripennis
- 401 Downloads
The glassy-winged sharpshooter (GWSS), Homalodisca vitripennis, is an important vector of Xylella fastidiosa, the causal agent of Pierce’s disease of grapevine. GWSS control relies mainly on insecticides; therefore, an alternative method, such as vibrational mating disruption, is required. However, knowledge of GWSS intraspecific communication is necessary to evaluate applicability of such methods. Mating behavior and associated vibrational signals were described in different social contexts: individuals, pairs, and one female with two competing males. Behavioral analysis showed that GWSS mating communication involved the emission of three male and two female signals, with specific roles in two distinct phases of mating behavior, identification and courtship. Mating success depended on vibrational duets between genders, which were temporarily interrupted in the presence of male rivalry. Male rivalry behavior involved the emission of three distinct rivalry signals. Two rivalry signals resemble female signals and were associated with replacement of the female in the duet by the rival male. The third rivalry signal was emitted by competing males. Data suggested that rival males used mimicry and hostile signals to interrupt the ongoing duet and gain access to a female. In the future, knowledge acquired from this study will be essential to develop a mechanical mating disruption method for GWSS control.
KeywordsVibrational communication Mating disruption Rivalry Leafhopper Xylella fastidiosa
We thank Theresa de la Torre, Matthew Escoto, and Melissa Fujioka for providing technical assistance.
Compliance with ethical standards
This study was funded by United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service (Project # 2034-22000-010-00D), Fondazione Edmund Mach, and a California Department of Food and Agriculture/Pierce’s Disease Board grant awarded to RK and VM.
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.
- Charif RA, Waack AM, Strickman LM (2010) Raven Pro 1.4 user’s manual. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, IthacaGoogle Scholar
- Goodman LA (1968) The analysis of cross-classified data: independence, quasi-independence, and interactions in contingency tables with or without missing entries. J Am Stat Assoc 63:1091–1131Google Scholar
- Greenfield MD (2002) Signalers and receivers: mechanisms and evolution of arthropod communication. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Haccou P, Meelis E (1992) Statistical analysis of behavioural data: an approach based on time-structured models. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Ichikawa T, Ishii S (1974) Mating signal of the brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens Stal (Homoptera: Delphacidae): vibration of the substrate. Appl Entomol Zool 9:196–198Google Scholar
- Mazzoni V, Eriksson A, Anfora G, Lucchi A, Virant-Doberlet M (2014) Active space and the role of amplitude in plant–borne vibrational communication. In: Cocroft RB, Gogala M, Hill P, Wessel A (eds) Studying vibrational communication. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 125–145Google Scholar
- Sorensen JT, Gill RJ (1996) A range extension of Homalodisca coagulata (Say) (Hemiptera: Clypeorrhyncha: Cicadellidae) to southern California. Pan Pac Entomol 72:160–161Google Scholar
- Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Pearson Education India. New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar