Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 547–563 | Cite as

Taste Sensitivity of Insect Herbivores to Deterrents is Greater in Specialists Than in Generalists: A Behavioral Test of the Hypothesis with Two Closely Related Caterpillars

  • E. A. Bernays
  • S. Oppenheim
  • R. F. Chapman
  • H. Kwon
  • F. Gould
Article

Abstract

Sensitivity of caterpillars of Heliothis virescens, a generalist, and H. subflexa, a specialist, to eight different plant secondary compounds was examined behaviorally. The compounds were nicotine hydrogen tartrate, hordenine, caffeine, sinigrin, linamarin, arbutin, chlorogenic acid, and salicin. All compounds deterred feeding, at least at the higher concentrations, but the generalist was less affected than the specialist. Thus the hypothesis that specialists have greater sensitivity to deterrents than generalists was supported. In most cases deterrence occurred on first encounter, indicating that the response was sensory; in some cases short-term postingestive effects also appeared to play a role. The larger quantities of deterrent-containing food ingested by H. virescens sometimes resulted in measurable postingestive effects during the second control test. This did not occur in H. subflexa, which more commonly rejected the deterrent-containing food on first contact. The contrast between the species is discussed in relation to tradeoffs involved in different diet breadths.

Heliothis virescens Heliothis subflexa caterpillar diet breadth deterrent compound feeding behavior postingestive toxicity plant secondary metabolite 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Asaoka, K. 1994. Different spectrum in responses of deterrent receptor cells in Sawa-J, a strain of the silkworm, Bombyx mori, with abnormal feeding habit. Zool. Sci. II (suppl): 102.Google Scholar
  2. Bernays, E. A. 1995. Effects of experience in host-plant selection, pp. 47-64, in R. Cardé and W. Bell (eds.). Chemical Ecology, Chapman and Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Bernays, E. A., and Chapman, R. F. 1987. The evolution of deterrent responses in plant-feeding insects, pp. 150-174, in R. F. Chapman, E. A. Bernays, and J. G. Stoffolano (eds.). Perspectives in Chemoreception and Behavior. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Bernays, E. A., and Chapman, R. F. 1994. Host Plant Selection by Phytophagous Insects. Chapman and Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Bernays, E. A., and Weiss, E. A. 1996. Induced food preferences in caterpillars: The need to identify mechanisms. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 78:1–8.Google Scholar
  6. Blaney, W. M., Simmonds, M. S. J., Ley, S. V., and Katz, R. B. 1987. An electrophysiological and behavioural study of insect antifeedant properties of natural and synthetic drimane-related compounds. Physiol. Entomol. 12:281–291.Google Scholar
  7. Blaney, W. M., Simmonds, M. S. J., Ley, S. V., and Jones, P. S. 1988. Insect antifeedants: A behavioural and electrophysiological investigation of natural and synthetically derived clerodane diterpenoids. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 46:267–274.Google Scholar
  8. Fang, Q. Q., Cho, S., Regier, J. C., Mitter, C., Matthews, M., Poole, R. W., Friedlander, T. P. and Zhao, S. W. 1997. A new nuclear gene for insect phylogenetics: Dopa decarboxylase is informative of relationships within Heliothinae (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Syst. Biol. 46:269–283.Google Scholar
  9. Glendinning, J. I. 1996. Is chemosensory input essential for the rapid rejection of toxic foods? J. Exp. Biol. 199:1523–1534.Google Scholar
  10. Glendinning, J. I., and Slansky, F. 1994. Interactions of allelochemicals with dietary constituents: effects on deterrency. Physiol. Entomol. 19:173–186.Google Scholar
  11. Glendinning, J. I., and Slansky, F. 1995. Consumption of a toxic food by caterpillars increases with dietary exposure: Support for a role of induced detoxification enzymes. J. Comp. Physiol. A 176:337–345.Google Scholar
  12. Gould, F., Anderson, A., Reynolds, A., Bumgardner, L., and Moar, W. 1995. Selection and genetic analysis of a Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) strain with high levels of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxins. J. Econ. Entomol. 88:1545–1559.Google Scholar
  13. Graham, H. M., and Robertson, O. T. 1970. Host plants of Heliothis virescens and H. zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the lower Rio Grande valley, Texas. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 3:1261–1265.Google Scholar
  14. Huang, X. P., and Renwick, J. A. A. 1995. Chemical and experiential basis for rejection of Tropaeolum majus by Pieris rapae larvae. J. Chem. Ecol. 21:1601–1618.Google Scholar
  15. Jermy, T. 1966. Feeding inhibitors and food preference in chewing phytophagous insects. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 9:1–12.Google Scholar
  16. Lindroth, R. L. 1991. Differential toxicity of plant allelochemicals to insects: roles of enzymic detoxication systems, pp. 1-34, in E. A. Bernays (ed.). Insect-Plant Interactions, Vol. III. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  17. Mitchell, E. R., and Heath, R. R. 1987. Heliothis subflexa (Gn.). (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): Demonstration of oviposition stimulant from groundcherry using novel bioassay. J. Chem. Ecol. 13:1849–1858.Google Scholar
  18. Mitter, C., Poole, P. W., and Matthews, M. 1993. Biosystematics of the Heliothinae (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Annu. Rev. Entomol. 38:207–225.Google Scholar
  19. Neunzig, H. H. 1969. The biology of the tobacco budworm and the corn earworm in North Carolina. Tech. Bull No. 196. North Carolina Agriculture Experiment Station, Raleigh.Google Scholar
  20. Noldus, L. P. J. J. 1991. The observer: a software system for collection and analysis of observational data. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 23:415–429.Google Scholar
  21. Schoonhoven, L. M., Jermy, T., and van Loon, J. J. A. 1998. Insect-Plant Biology. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  22. Sheck, A., and Gould, F. 1996. The genetic basis of differences in growth and behavior of specialist and generalist herbivore species: Selection on hybrids of Heliothis virescens and Heliothis subflexa. Evolution 50:831–841.Google Scholar
  23. Snyder, M. J., and Glendinning, J. I. 1996. Causal connection between detoxification enzyme activity and consumption of a toxic plant compound. J. Comp. Physiol. A 179:255–261.Google Scholar
  24. Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J. 1995. Biometry, 3rd ed. W. H. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Stadelbacher, E. A. 1981. Role of early-season wild and naturalized host plants in the buildup of the F1 generation of Heliothis zea and H. virescens in the delta of the Mississippi. Environ. Entomol. 10:766–770.Google Scholar
  26. Usher, B. F., Bernays, E. A., and Barbehenn, R. V. 1988. Antifeedant tests with larvae of Pseudaletia unipuncta: Variability of behavioral responses. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 48:203–212.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. A. Bernays
    • 1
  • S. Oppenheim
    • 2
  • R. F. Chapman
    • 3
  • H. Kwon
    • 1
  • F. Gould
    • 2
  1. 1.Entomology DepartmentUniversity of ArizonaTucson
  2. 2.Entomology DepartmentNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh
  3. 3.Division of NeurobiologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonArizona

Personalised recommendations